Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Recruits (Underclothing)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for Air why woollen underclothing is not issued to R.A.F. recruits in winter time.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Woollen pants are issued to R.A.F. recruits if they prefer them to cotton, but only cotton vests are issued because experience has shown that there is little demand for woollen.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have here a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Air, stating that the normal issue to recruits is two cotton vests? Is he also aware that a constituent of mine, who was called up and issued with two cotton vests, promptly caught pneumonia, and that woollen underclothing is issued in the Army?

Mr. Henderson: I am aware that it is issued in the Army, and I should have no objection to it being issued to members of the Air Force if they desired to have them. But in fairness to my Department I should say that on the last occasion on which it was suggested that airmen should have woollen vests, in 1940—those serving in the North of England and in Scotland were given the option—the majority chose cotton.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is woollen underclothing available for issue, because I understand that at the aerodrome I have in mind it was not?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, the rule at the moment is that woollen underclothing can only be issued on the authority of the medical officer.

Brigadier Head: Could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman compromise between cotton and wool, and provide Aertex underclothing?

Mepal Aerodrome, Ely

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement about the future of Mepal Aerodrome, near Ely.

Mr. A. Henderson: Mepal airfield is being purchased by my Department for use by the R.A.F. Until the airfield is used again for flying, all the land, other than that covered with runways and buildings, is available for agriculture.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman re-open the right of way which used to exist across the middle of the aerodrome, and which would shorten the distance which villagers living in Mepal have to walk to their nearest shopping centre, in Sutton? Instead of having to walk four miles they would then have to walk only one, across the aerodrome.

Mr. Henderson: I would like to look into that proposition, but it has been agreed with the Ministry of Transport that the existing alternative roads should be improved, and financial approval has been obtained for that work.

National Pigeon Service (Feedingstuffs)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the cost incurred by the Air Ministry since 1945 in connection with the rationing scheme for pigeon feedingstuffs; what tonnage of feedingstuffs has been imported since 1945 and made available to pigeon fanciers through the National Pigeon Service; and what has been the cost of that tonnage.

Mr. A. Henderson: In 1946 and 1947 the pigeon food rationing scheme cost my Department about £1,500 a year. I am informed that altogether in these two years 6,163 tons of feedingstuffs, costing £168,000, were imported by the Ministry of Food and sold to members of the National Pigeon Service.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why this expenditure has been incurred, as I have a letter from the Air Ministry which says that there is no intention of using pigeons in any future emergency? Can he say why we are importing feedingstuffs from abroad for pigeons? Would it not be better to import it for chickens?

Mr. Henderson: That question ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. I am not aware of the existence of the letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, and I would like to see it.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why we should be importing feedingstuffs for pigeons, in view of the fact that they are generally fed on maple peas, vast quantities of which are grown in this country?

Mr. Henderson: The provision of food for pigeons is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Food. My Department is merely responsible for administering the scheme.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to continue subsidising food for carrier pigeons?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do what he can to encourage people to keep pigeons? They played a great part in the last war, and will probably do the same in the next.

Trainer Aircraft

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the shortage of modern ab initio trainer aircraft, what design and type have been decided on as standard equipment.

Mr. A. Henderson: While approximately 400 Prentice aircraft have been ordered, final decisions have not yet been taken about the types of aircraft to be used in future for ab initio training.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say where these aircraft have been ordered? Are they being designed and produced in this country or are they being produced in Canada?

Mr. Henderson: In this country.

Air Training Corps (Defence Medal)

Mr. George Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether officers of the A.T.C., who served during the war, are entitled to the Defence Medal.

Mr. A. Henderson: I regret that officers of the pre-Service Cadet Forces, which include the A.T.C., who were not called up for full-time service, are not entitled to the Defence Medal.

Derequisitioned Airfields

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can now indicate which are the eleven former R.A.F. airfields which are in process of being derequisitioned and returned to civilian use.

Mr. A. Henderson: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the list in HANSARD.

Mr. Medlicott: Can the Minister say if there is any prospect of any of the airfields in Norfolk being released in this way?

Mr. Henderson: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say offhand whether any of these aerodromes are in Cornwall?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Following is the list

Braunstone: Leicestershire.
Bury St. Edmunds: Suffolk.
Charter Hall: Berwick.
Elsham Wolds: Lincolnshire.
Findo Gask: Perth.
Gravesend: Kent.
MacMerry: East Lothian.
Roborough: Devon.
Stoke Orchard: Gloucestershire.
Thame: Buckinghamshire.
Theale: Berkshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the Aeronautical Engineers' Association is not recognised by B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and B.S.A.A. as a negotiating body.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): This is a matter of management. The


established machinery for negotiation between employers and employees in the civil aviation industry is the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely the Minister must have something to do with this? Considering that the majority of the engineers in the three corporations belong to this association, surely there is a case for telling the corporations that they should negotiate through that body?

Mr. Lindgren: So far as the latter part of the supplementary question is concerned, that is not the information I have. So far as the first part is concerned, the Minister's responsibility is to see that there is adequate machinery for negotiation. That machinery has been agreed between both sides of the industry—the employers and the trade unions—and there the Minister's responsibility finishes.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If it is proved to the Minister that machinery has not been established, as seems to be the case now, is it not then his duty to have another look at the matter?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. That machinery has been established.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (U.K. LIAISON MISSION)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many United States daily news-papers are received at the offices of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Tokyo; how much money is allocated by the Treasury for their purchase; how long it takes for them to arrive; and what monitoring system is in operation from Washington or New York for the Mission to be immediately informed of Press and Congress statements and comments on Japan.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Tokyo receives four American newspapers regularly by courtesy of their local correspondents; no money is therefore allocated by the Treasury for their purchase; they take twelve to fourteen days in transit. No monitoring system is in operation from Washington or New York for

the Mission to be informed immediately of Press and Congress statements and comments on Japan, but these are reported by the United Press and International News Service agencies, and any items of outstanding importance are immediately telegraphed to Tokyo by our Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the Parliamentary delegation was in Tokyo a most important piece of information appeared in the Chicago papers and the British Embassy was quite unable to obtain any such copy, whereas S.C.A.P. had already received it by wire from Washington? Does it not sometimes make it very difficult for the Ambassador to carry out his functions when he does not know what is going on?

Mr. Bevin: I have not the slightest idea what happened while the hon. Gentleman was in Tokyo. I was here. If the hon. Gentleman had let me or the Ambassador know at once, I would have seen whether a remedy could have been applied. I had never heard of this until the hon. Member put it to me just now.

Mr. Teeling: Can some remedy be applied whereby some monitoring system can be arranged so that the Ambassador can be kept regularly informed?

Mr. Bevin: If the Ambassador is in a difficulty, I expect him to communicate with me. That is only right and proper. I will take up quite strongly why he should complain to Members of Parliament before telling me that he is in difficulties.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: No, that is not fair. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the four papers which are delivered to the United Kingdom Mission in Tokyo?

Mr. Bevin: British papers?

Mr. Prescott: No, the American papers.

Mr. Bevin: I do not seem to have a copy of them here. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many United Kingdom daily newspapers are received at the offices of the United Kingdom Mission in Tokyo; how long it takes for them to arrive; and what system is


in operation to keep the head of the Mission immediately informed of all articles in the Press or references in Parliament to Japan.

Mr. Bevin: Five daily papers and in addition three Sunday papers and three weeklies are received at the Offices of the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Tokyo. They are sent by air and take from 15 to 25 days. A summary of important items appearing in the Press is telegraphed weekly. Any item of special importance is immediately summarised and telegraphed as are all important Parliamentary references. In addition, the Mission receives cuttings of all Press and Parliamentary references by air bag and the London Press Service is also available.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Ambassador in London sends regularly by monitoring any newspaper articles connected with Japan from this country to General MacArthur and they are received by him the next day? May I also ask if he is fully aware that in no circumstances at any moment did the Embassy in Tokyo put this to us as a matter of complaint. We found it out for ourselves having lived there for three weeks and kept our eyes open.

Mr. Bevin: I have looked through what the office is doing in sending information and I am quite satisfied that we are keeping our Embassies thoroughly informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

"T" Force Hotels (Staffs)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many hotels are now being run by "T" Force; what is the number of British and foreign staff engaged; and what other useful functions "T" Force now carries out.

Mr. Bevin: "T" Force run 23 hotels for business visitors to the British zone of Germany and British Sector of Berlin for which purpose they employ 53 British and 1,031 German staff. Their duties include providing transport for these visitors. At present they are also responsible for the movement of reparations to the United Kingdom under the unilateral scheme.

Mr. Stokes: In order to save further questions, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether it is the intention to wind up this activity this year?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer that offhand. I am looking into the whole thing afresh.

Currency

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to accompany currency reform in Germany with a definite plan for the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods.

Mr. Bevin: Consideration will be given to this together with the other economic factors connected with the planning for currency reform.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he reforms the currency without making goods available, he will have to reform the currency again next year and the year after as well?

Mr. Bevin: I am quite aware of that. At the same time since this matter is now under consideration and being negotiated, I cannot give further details.

Categorisation (Forms)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the forms required for categorisation, though promised for delivery in Germany in November last year have not yet arrived; that in consequence categorisation is held up; and what steps does he propose to take to get this matter put right.

Mr. Bevin: There is no shortage of these forms in the British zone and I am not aware that categorisation is held up for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend. The categorisation of militarists is temporarily held up as our policy towards these persons is now under review.

Mr. Stokes: I was referring to military categorisation or ex-military categorisation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a shortage of these forms and that categorisation of these people has been held up since last November?

Mr. Bevin: I do not believe that there is a shortage of forms in this country or Germany.

Mr. Stokes: While it may very well be that there are too many forms about, this form at any rate is in short supply.

Mr. John Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend in what respect "categorization" differs from "classification"? Would it not be better to discontinue the use of such horrible jargon?

Mr. Bevin: I will consider that matter.

Scrap Metal

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that German industrialists and metal merchants do not fail to carry out arrangements for the supply of scrap metal to this country.

Mr. Bevin: The German authorities are now responsible for assisting the scrap industry in the Combined zone to increase output both for domestic use and for export. The Anglo-American authorities are constantly impressing on them the urgency of this task.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the Germans are carrying out their obligations in this respect?

Mr. Bevin: They have delivered a good deal. I cannot say that they are quite up to date in their deliveries, but there are a lot of other factors involved as well.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the main difficulty in effecting deliveries is not that under the Potsdam Agreement they are prevented from having enough rolling stock?

Mr. House: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the short delivery of scrap from Germany is having a serious effect on the iron and steel industry of this country?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I cannot answer these questions. They should be put to the Minister of Supply. I can say, however, that I noticed the other day in an answer, or in the paper, that there was no hold up of the steel industry of this country through scrap at the present moment.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend look at the question of the staffing of a Department which has been set up to collect this scrap metal? At the present moment I gather that only 45 per cent. of the staff originally expected is actually at work. That is an important consideration, and I ask him to look into it.

Newspaper Correspondence

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any regulations prohibiting Germans in the British zone of Germany or the British section of Berlin from writing letters for publication to papers in Great Britain.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Mr. Wilson Harris: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars of a letter sent by a young German to an English paper—a quite reputable paper—as a result of which he was sent for by a member of the Control Commission and cross-questioned, and told not to do it again, will he have the matter looked into?

Mr. Bevin: I will look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONER OF WAR (HOLLAND)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the difficulties of a German prisoner of war in England, of whose name and camp he has been notified, who, as a member of the Society of Friends and the German Social Democratic Party, left Germany in 1933, married a Dutch woman and set up a home and business in Holland, where his children were born and still reside, but is now not permitted by the Dutch authorities to return to Holland; and if he will make representations to the Netherlands Government with a view to assisting this man's repatriation to Holland instead of to Germany and the consequent resumption of his interrupted family and professional life.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of this case. The decision as to which German citizens are accepted into Holland is clearly one for the Netherlands Government, and I do not think we should be justified in intervening.

Mr. Driberg: While obviously the decision is one for the Dutch Government, could not my right hon. Friend make representations in regard to this particularly hard case, in view of this man's very good record and the hardship caused to his wife and family?

Mr. Bevin: I have taken it up in a friendly way twice, but they have given their decision and I cannot intervene again.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Supreme Council for National Defence

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PLATTS-MILLS:

16. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it has been decided that the heads of the British Military and Police Missions shall in future attend meetings of the so-called Greek Supreme Council for National Defence; and how this affects his repeated undertakings to withdraw all British Forces from that country as soon as possible.

Major Tufton Beamish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance about Question No. 16?

Mr. Speaker: That Question has not yet been asked, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman may ask a question about it if he wishes.

Major Beamish: I wish to raise a point of Order about the fact that the Question refers to the Greek Supreme Council for National Defence as the "so-called" Council. That seems to me to insinuate that the Council is either improperly constituted or illegally elected which, so far as I know, is not the case. Is it in Order to insinuate that that is so when in fact it is not so?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member is entirely responsible for what he puts on the Order Paper. If a Question obeys the Rules of Order, the Chair cannot withhold it. The hon. Member who puts it down is responsible for the facts or the allegations he puts therein.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I have always understood that insinuations were contrary to the Rules of Order for Questions. Is this not an insinuation?

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice an insinuation in it.

Mr. Lindsay: Is not the insinuation in the word "so-called," that this body is not properly constituted?

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order—

Mr. Speaker: I had better answer this one first. I cannot see that "so-called" makes an insinuation. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) is responsible himself for saying that. That is his own opinion. I cannot see that there is an insinuation in that.

Mr. Rankin: Might I raise this further point, Mr. Speaker? When does a Question become the property of this House? Does it become the property of the House when it appears on the Order Paper, or when it is called by you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose, when it appears on the Order Paper we must be able to take notice of it. That is a public document.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not quite incorrect to refer to this as a "Greek Supreme Council" when there are Americans on it?

Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that I am quite unable to answer that question.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not quite clear now, from the remarks of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that there is an innuendo in this phrase "so-called Greek Supreme Council"?

Mr. Speaker: I thought it was quite clearly the other way. I cannot see that there is an innuendo. I suggest, as this Question is not being asked, we had better get on with Questions.

Death Sentences, Athens

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from the British Labour Attaché in Athens regarding the threatened execution of four members of the Patras Trades Council.

Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Embassy in Athens have reported that four members of the Patras Trades Council were arrested on 28th April, 1947. They were tried by the emergency court martial procedure at present in operation in Greece, and found guilty of being active members of an illegal and subversive organisation. They were condemned to death on 17th August, but have not yet been


executed, and are believed to be still in prison at Nauplion. The House should clearly understand that their membership of the Patras Trades Council was, of course, in no sense an offence.

Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men were in exile at the time that the offence alleged against them was committed? Will he continue to watch the matter and urge, not only that these men should not be executed but, if possible, that their sentences be quashed?

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH TITLE)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will indicate the intention of His Majesty's Government to refer to the Security Council their dispute with the Governments of Argentina and Chile if the present line of action by those Governments is continued.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The policy of His Majesty's Government is that the question of rival claims in the Falkland Islands Dependencies should, in the first instance, be brought before the International Court of Justice. This is based on our belief that international discussions could scarcely be profitable until the question of title has been subjected to international legal examination. This, of course, in no way precludes the possibility of discussions at a later stage.
It has been suggested from the Chilean side that our offer to accept the opinion of the Court was not a fair one because we were asking the other parties to appear as plaintiffs. I wish to point out that the sole reason for presenting the matter in this form was that neither Argentina nor Chile had accepted the Optional Clause of the Statute of the International Court of justice and that consequently it is impossible at present for His Majesty's Government to bring this dispute before the Court by themselves proceeding as plaintiffs. His Majesty's Government desire, however, to reaffirm that if the Argentine and Chilean Governments are willing to make an agreement with us under which the Court shall pronounce upon the title to these territories, we shall be glad to collaborate in the negotiation of such an agreement.
The President of Chile has now returned to his own country after his visit to the South Shetlands and has made certain declarations. The Argentine fleet carrying five Admirals is now, I understand, off Deception Island. His Majesty's representative in Buenos Aires has been assured by the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs that these vessels have been sent with no intention of asserting any rights or taking possession of any territory but merely to carry out routine exercises in that area.
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government these expeditions and the declarations which accompany them in no way affect the question of title and sovereignty in these areas. They are gestures by the parties concerned in support of their claims, which of course are not recognised by the other parties. In so far as they create excitement and ill-feeling they appear to His Majesty's Government highly regrettable.

Mr. Blackburn: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him if he is aware that one of these declarations by the President of Chile contained the accusation that we are violating the principles of the United Nations? Will the Foreign Secretary, therefore, make it plain that in the last resort we shall be perfectly willing to have this matter submitted to the Security Council, if it should become necessary to do so?

Mr. Bevin: I must really get this title business settled. People cannot go on interfering with British territory over which we are exercising sovereignty and then, as a result of kicking up a row, expect us to go to the Security Council. I have offered, in this case and others, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to have the legal title settled in the International Court of Justice, and until that title is settled, I am not prepared to take any other steps.

Mr. Eden: While endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman has said in reference to The Hague Court, which I thought was indisputable in any country which accepts international law, may I ask him also whether the landing and settling of foreigners in these Islands is not, in fact, contrary to the domestic legislation of the Falkland Islands and, if so, should not a protest have been made on that account at some time?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to look into that. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the administration of the Falkland Islands is under another Department; I have only been dealing with it from the Foreign Office point of view. I will look into that matter.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it not rather ludicrous to talk about an International Court when it is apparently impossible to bring a dispute before that Court?

Mr. Bevin: That is not correct. There are cases before the Court now, which are being dealt with. But really it is no use people talking about the United Nations unless we are willing to utilise the International Court which is a part of it.

Mr. Eden: While I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about domestic law, may I put this to him? I assume that His Majesty's Government could not agree to any squatters' rights from foreigners who happen to settle in these territories?

Mr. Bevin: No, but I think the squatters would probably get so cold, they might go of their own volition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the Press reports that the President of Chile has purported to issue a proclamation annexing certain of this territory to Chile? If this is confirmed, what action will the right hon. Gentleman take?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of these questions. Where international legal matters are concerned, I do not like answering supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

United Nations (Security Forces)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what clause of the charter or other international instrument the Assembly of the United Nations Organisation proposes to use military Forces to enforce the partition of Palestine.

Mr. Bevin: The General Assembly did not propose the use of military force to impose partition in Palestine.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say under what Clause of the Charter, or any other international instrument, any member State of the Arab

League would be entitled to use force to prevent it?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question altogether.

Government Officials (Pensions)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies from what funds pensions of the Palestine Government officials will be met after the termination of the Mandate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I hope that it will be possible within a few days to make an announcement which will cover the question of payment of the pensions of Palestine Government officials after the termination of the Mandate.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my hon. Friend say what provision is being made for giving compensation in the case of those officials who are prematurely retired through no fault of their own?

Mr. Rees-Williams: All that will be dealt with in the statement.

Fawzi el Kaukji

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Fawzi el Kaukji is in Palestine, and as he is on the special list for detention on entering Palestine what steps have been taken to detain him.

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, Sir. Various reports have been received by the Palestine Government of the presence of Fawzi el Kaukji in Palestine, but I am informed by the High Commissioner that they have not been substantiated and that it is not believed that he is at present in the country.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that this man led a revolt during the war against Britain in Syria and in Irak, and was constantly attacking the Allied Forces, will my hon. Friend see to it that this man at least will be prevented from entering Palestine?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would not the Under-Secretary of State agree that the best help in stopping this gentleman from being allowed to come into Palestine would be the cessation of the murderous attacks on British troops and Palestinian policemen by Jews?

Incidents, Jerusalem

Mr. S. Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make concerning the recent outrages in Jerusalem in view of the fact that the Arab Higher Committee have repudiated as false the document taking responsibility for the outrages.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have seen a Press report of the statement purporting to have been made by the Arab Higher Committee to which my hon. Friend refers. It is, however, a fact that such a pamphlet was circulated in Jerusalem yesterday, and I informed the House of that fact.

Mr. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say whether he will now make investigations as to the origin of the pamphlet and whether, in the light of all that we now know, he does not now consider that the very best service that can be rendered to all people interested is to hold an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise from the original Question.

Mr. Eden: Arising from the Minister's reply, may we take it that whatever statement has been made by the Arab Higher Committee, or anybody else, he stands by his declaration of yesterday that in the view of His Majesty's Government British troops have no responsibility whatever for the outrages?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Most certainly. I entirely stand by the statement I made yesterday.

Mr. Stokes: I must, of course, accept my hon. Friend's assurance about British troops not being responsible, but in view of the ambiguity that has been created, does he not think that the most sensible thing to do is to carry out a full and proper inquiry so that the facts may be known?

Mr. Baldwin: Is it not a fact that the name on the memorandum is the name of someone closely connected with the Mufti?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes. He is one of the leading adjutants of the Mufti.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that the Arab Higher Executive have stated that Husseini was not in Palestine at all and

that he had been away for the last four days, and in view of the fact that this pamphlet was supposed to have been signed by him, will my hon. Friend consider the importance of having a proper inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can carry this any further. The Minister has said that he did not know. Therefore, what is the good of going on?

Mr. Silverman: Will not my hon. Friend consider whether, in answer to the question which has been put to him from all sides of the House, he might agree that the proper thing is to hold an inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (SOVIET-BORN WIVES)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the latest position with regard to the repatriation of the British wives in Russia.

Mr. Bevin: I have given the most careful consideration to the various suggestions which have been made to me, but I have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that none of the proposals made offers reasonable hope of being any more effective than the many representations which have already been made at the highest level. I deeply sympathise with the husbands and deplore the Soviet attitude, which remains entirely incomprehensible to us.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the Foreign Secretary inform the House why he considers it inappropriate to take the steps suggested in another place, namely, retaliatory action in the form of limiting the number of wives of Soviet citizens permitted to come to this country?

Mr. Bevin: I doubt very much whether that would be effective. I have not indulged in the retaliatory method yet. I do not want to be driven to it if I can help it.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Has my right hon. Friend been able to discover the reason why the U.S.S.R. are so anxious to retain these women and their children?

Mr. Bevin: They take an entirely different view. They claim that they are Soviet citizens. They do not take the same view about this as we do. Therefore, when I raised the matter with them, as I said in answer to a previous question, I urged that as the relevant law was not passed when they married, these women should be allowed to go. But it had no effect.

Mr. Austin: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Soviet Union that a gesture by the Soviet Union in releasing these women would do much more towards cementing good will between the two countries than anything Mr. Molotov or Mr. Vishinsky could say at the conference table?

Mr. T. Reid: Is there any truth in the statement that we are retaining Soviet citizens, and preventing them from going back to Russia?

Mr. Bevin: No.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government spokesman in another place promised to take effective action in this matter? Will he, therefore, reconsider it?

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (POLITICAL SITUATION)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made, in view of the declaration by the Bulgarian Prime Minister on 2nd February for a one-party State for Bulgaria, which is a breach of the Bulgarian Peace Treaty.

Mr. Bevin: No protest has been made about this speech because my reports show that the Bulgarian Prime Minister was careful to indicate that the formation of one party was an eventual, and not an immediate, objective; but the intentions of the Bulgarian Communist Party are clear, and I would again state, publicly and solemnly, that His Majesty's Government deplore the progressive establishment of Communist dictatorships in the countries of Eastern Europe, whose peoples are neither considered, nor consulted.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Socialist Party in Bulgaria have been terrorised, and the whole of the executive of the Socialist Party are now under arrest?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I know what is going on, and it all goes on according to form. That is why the new institution is called the Cominform.

Mr. Mack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Unified Party, to which the Bulgarian Prime Minister referred, is the "Fatherland Front," which comprises several parties for the purpose of combating Fascism and reaction, just as we formed a Coalition Government during the war for waging it to a successful conclusion?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to put a report of the speech made by Dimitrov to the Bulgarian Parliament in the Library? I asked this before, and the Minister of State said that it would be considered; will he get it put in the Library?

Mr. Bevin: I shall be perfectly willing, if I can secure an undertaking that my speeches should hang in the Library of the Bulgarian House, to hang his speech here; but I ought to have reciprocity.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA

Soviet General's Speech, Vienna

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led the British Chargé d'Affaires to leave the Red Army celebrations in Vienna.

Mr. Bevin: On 22nd February, the British Chargé d'Affaires in Vienna, Mr. Cheetham, attended officially, as guest of the Austrian Society for Cultural and Economic Relations with the Soviet Union, a function in honour of the 30th anniversary of the Red Army. Unfortunately, the Soviet Commander-in-Chief and High Commissioner in Austria, Colonel General Kurásov, made this the occasion for an attack, couched in the most offensive terms, against the so-called Imperialist Powers and directed particularly against Great Britain and the United States of America. Amongst other things, General Kurásov accused these Powers of having subsidised Hitler to launch his attack on the Soviet Union, and of now preparing an attack of their own. Both Mr. Cheetham and his United States colleague felt that it would be inappropriate


and undignified for representatives of the two Allied Powers concerned to remain in the hall while their countries were being subjected to insult and abuse by the representative of a third Allied Power, in the presence of a large Austrian audience. They therefore left the hall while General Kurásov was still speaking.
I can only add to this account that His Majesty's Government fully endorse the action of Mr. Cheetham, and deplore the circumstances which obliged him to take it.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that the Russians have repeatedly shown that they do not wish to be bound by the elementary courtesies of international intercourse, would it not be better if our representatives refrained from attending functions of this sort?

Professor Savory: Has not a written protest been sent protesting against these statements?

Mr. Bevin: I assume it will be dealt with when the Allied Council meet in Vienna, but such action will be repeated the next day just the same. There is something in the Question which has just been put which I feel I ought to consider.

Danube Floating Dock

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take as a result of the removal of the Danube floating dock from Austria to Hungary.

Mr. Bevin: At yesterday's meeting of the Austrian Deputies, the United Kingdom Representative drew attention to the report that this dock had been removed to Hungary at the very moment when the question of the Danube Shipping Company's assets was being considered in London. He made it clear that His Majesty's Government would strongly deprecate any attempt to prejudge, by action of the kind reported, a question which the representatives of the four Powers now meeting in London have been specifically charged with settling. In this he was supported by the United States and French Deputies. The Soviet Deputy was asked to furnish an explanation; he undertook to seek information from his authorities.

Mr. Gammans: Does this not appear to be a case of just plain thieving and pillage?

Mr. Bevin: If the representative has undertaken to communicate with his authority, I must wait for the answer before I pronounce an opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE YEMEN (IMAM'S DEATH)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report he has received from the British representative regarding the death of the King of the Yemen and three of his sons.

Mr. Bevin: There is no British representative in the Yemen. The Governor of Aden, through whom are conducted His Majesty's Government's relations with that country, has received information from Sana'a of the death of the Imam Yehia. His Majesty's Government are unable to confirm the report that three of the late Imam's sons are also dead.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports from the Governor of Aden suggest that these deaths were due to natural causes, or otherwise?

Mr. Bevin: I have no definite information on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (CHEGE KIBACHIA)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to release Chege Kibachia, recently deported to the Seychelles from Kenya.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Mr. Kibachia is not in the Seychelles but at Kabarnet in the Rift Valley Province of Kenya, where, by Order dated 23rd of September last, he is required to remain until further notice. Arrangements have been made for his case to be reviewed at intervals of six months. I am unable to say when it is proposed to release him.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my hon. Friend mean that this man is likely to be detained indefinitely without a charge being made?

Mr. Rees-Williams: This man is rather a dangerous individual. In July, 1947, he threatened that any person failing to come out on a strike which he proposed to call


should have his ears cut off. His Majesty's Government do not feel that this constitutes good trade union practice, and until he learns to behave himself he will be detained.

Mr. Sorensen: If this man has been guilty of this sort of language—intimidation and threats—could he not be brought to trial?

Mr. Rees-Williams: He was brought to trial before a justice of the Supreme Court, and as a result of that he is now not exactly in detention but excluded from the area in which he was misbehaving himself.

Mr. Gallacher: Could not Members on this side of the House be taken up for advocating or threatening strikes and Members on the other side for threats and intimidation?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Unemployment

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many coloured men are unemployed in Jamaica, Trinidad, Windward Islands and Leeward Islands, respectively.

Mr. Rees-Williams: In these Colonies there is more under-employment than total unemployment. Accurate figures for the latter are not available but the latest estimates are: Jamaica, 50,000; Leeward Islands, 10,000; Windward Islands,
2,000; Trinidad, 1,100. The Jamaican estimate includes under-employed. No separate statistics are kept of coloured unemployed.

Health and Unemployment Insurance, Trinidad

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether satisfactory schemes for health and unemployment insurance have yet been drawn up in Trinidad; and when it is proposed to operate them.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The recommendations contained in the interim report of the Committee on Health Insurance in Trinidad, to which my right hon. Friend referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) on 30th October, 1946, were found on examination to be imprac-

ticable. The possibility of operating health insurance through the machinery of the friendly society movement was then explored, but so far without success and the Governor is not sanguine about the prospects. Another committee which is studying unemployment insurance has not yet submitted any report. In view of the difficulties which both committees are known to be experiencing owing to the complexity of the subjects in question, the Governor has recently asked them to state at an early date whether or not they were going to complete their labours and report shortly.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been the subject of repeated Questions in this House by many of us; it has been going on for nearly two years. Can I now take it that some action is really to be forthcoming?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes. We have sent an urgent telegram asking them to expedite their report, if they propose to make one.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a decision has yet been reached regarding compensation for personal effects lost during the occupation of Malaya by the Japanese; and on what basis compensation is to be fixed.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Malayan War Damage Claims Commissioner is at present in this country for discussions with the Departments concerned. It will be necessary for the Malayan Governments to consider the outcome of these discussions in the light of the general financial position before a statement can be made of the basis on which any compensation for war damage can be paid.

Mr. Gammans: Considering that this has been going on for the last two and a half years, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time the Government came to some decision in this matter?

Mr. Rees-Williams: It has been a long time, but then there is involved a vast sum of money for a country such as Malaya. We are asking them to expedite their decision on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (TRADE UNIONS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Cyprus Government Workers' Union has been recognised by the Government of Cyprus; and whether he is satisfied that there are no obstacles to the proper functioning of trade unions in Cyprus.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Governor of Cyprus in Executive Council refused to sanction the registration of the proposed Cyprus Government Workers' Trade Union for the reasons stated in the reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 11th June, 1947. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Governor concerning a revision of the existing Cyprus trade unions and trade disputes law.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Official Visits (Itineraries)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent are such places as Birnin Kebbi, Okitipupa, Badagry, Arochuku, Obubra, Abakaliki, Sapele, Lokoja, Yola, Bauchi, Maidugari and Sokoto, which are away from the easily-travelled routes, included in the itinerary when official visits are paid by the Government House staff, or by Colonial civil servants, Ministers or Members of Parliament from this country visiting Nigeria; how many times has each of these places been visited during the last three years by such individuals, shown separately, for the Colonial Government staff, Colonial Office staff and others for each place mentioned.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to the inclusion of outlying places in the itineraries of official visits, and this view is fully shared by Colonial Governments. I am asking the Acting Governor of Nigeria to provide me with any information which is readily available as to the extent to which visits have been made within the last two years to the places mentioned and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive this information.

Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that Colonial officials, including

district officers, much appreciate visits being made to these outlying districts, and could he encourage such visits to take place on every possible occasion when visits are being made, rather than, as they usually are, to the places which are easier of access?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I fully appreciate that. We will do all we can to facilitate these visits.

Constitution

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has made to the proposals submitted to him by the National Council of Nigeria last summer, and whether he is satisfied with the working of the present Constitution.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the letter and memorandum sent by the Nigerian Government on my right hon. Friend's instructions to the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons. The letter deals with the constitutional proposals put forward by the delegation. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Civil Service Pensions

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is intended to review the position with regard to retired Colonial civil servants with fixed pensions with a view to treating their pensions in the same way as those of home civil servants, whose pensions have been subject to increases due to rising cost of living; and will he take into account the fact that when these Colonial pension schemes were first started, they were not subject to Income Tax in this country which has since been applied.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The position of Colonial pensioners in this country was reviewed in consultation with Colonial Governments in the light of both the Pensions (Increase) Act and the amending Act of 1947. Most Colonial Governments now award increases to their pensioners on the same basis as that prescribed in Section 1 of the Pensions (Increase) Act of this country, as amended by the Act of 1947. I understand that Colonial pensions have always


been subject to United Kingdom Income Tax when paid to a pensioner resident in this country.

Mr. Cooper: Would my hon. Friend give consideration to making representations to the Colonial Governments in those cases where it is seen that the conditions of retirement pension are less favourable to retired Colonial civil servants than they are to retired civil servants who have served in this country.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I will look into that point.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to place in the Library a statement which would enable us to see which Colonial Governments have increased pensions, and which have not, and in the case of those which have increased them, how the increases compare with those sanctioned by the Pensions (Increase) Act? We ought to be able to keep track of what is happening to these people.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I will see that that is done.

Inland Transport Adviser

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date an adviser on colonial inland transport was appointed to succeed Mr. C. E. Rooke, C.M.G., resigned.

Mr. Rees-Williams: On the 1st January last.

Mr. Davies: May we know who is the gentleman?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Mr. A. J. F. Bunning, formerly general manager of the Nigerian Railways.

Labour and Social Welfare Advisers

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the posts of woman assistant labour adviser, and social welfare adviser, announced as approved in Command Paper No. 7167 (para. 85), were filled, and by whom.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Miss S. A. Ogilvie, formerly Inspector of Labour, Palestine, was appointed Woman Assistant Labour Adviser on 13th October, 1947. Mr. W. H. Chinn, formerly Director of

Social Welfare, Palestine, was appointed Adviser on Social Welfare on 17th November, 1947.

Economic and Development Council

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who are the present members of the Colonial Economic and Development Council; and how frequently they meet.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The present members of the Colonial Economic and Development Council are: Sir Graham Cunningham, Dr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. McFadyen, Sir Drummond Shiels, Dr. Wellesley Cole and Mr. Wansbrough. With regard to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) on r8th February.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the Minister to repeat the date of the last meeting?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The last meeting was on 25th August last, but as will be seen when hon. Members read the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, we are now reconstituting it. We have extended invitations to the members on the reconstituted body and practically every one of them has accepted. We hope to go on at a much greater speed than in the past.

Mr. Davies: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this important body should meet more frequently and may we expect to hear of better progress in the future?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I quite agree, and we have every intention of holding frequent meetings of this body.

Building Materials (Production)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are being made for the provision of the necessary building materials for each of the Colonies which will receive funds for Colonial development, involving the commissioning of additional buildings; whether local sources of building material supply and production, and co-operative contracting organisations, will be developed in each of the Colonies so far as possible, or is it intended that the


majority of the building materials shall be supplied and building contracts obtained from this country.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Every effort is being made to develop the production of local building materials in the Colonies. But it will, of course, not be possible to dispense entirely with imports and special study is now being given to the best means of ensuring for the Colonies their essential requirements of scarce materials such as iron and steel. Government building in the Colonies is normally undertaken by the Public Works Department or by one or more local contractors, but for major projects it may be necessary to employ one of the leading firms of civil engineering contractors from this country.

Mr. Cooper: Would my hon. Friend take active steps to encourage the development of local firms and co-operative organisations to produce the necessary building materials and to take on building contracts as an essential part of the new Colonial development schemes?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, we will look at that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (FOURAH BAY COLLEGE)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if further consideration is now being given to the future of Fourah Bay College, and what representation he has received from responsible West Africans or organisations in Sierra Leone who support the proposed future retention of this institution.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of sources, and has promised to receive a deputation of the Friends of Fourah Bay College on his return from New York. Meanwhile, I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether, in fact, any representations at all have been made by responsible persons or organisations in Sierra Leone, supporting the attitude of the Secretary of State to this particular college?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not fully aware of what personal representations

have been made to the Secretary of State. A large number of representations have been made officially, mainly by organisations in this country, and I think it would be better to leave the matter until my right hon. Friend returns, as he has taken a very great personal interest in it.

Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, may we take it that, in fact, there are no organisations or persons of whom the hon. Gentleman is aware who support the restriction of Fourah Bay College?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not aware of any, but that does not mean that there are not any.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Argentine Beef (Prices)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Food what price per pound is being paid for Argentine beef f.o.b.; the price landed in United Kingdom; the price to butcher in United Kingdom; and what grade of beef, as graded in the Argentine, do these prices cover.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): It would not be in the public interest to state the import prices of Argentine beef. The wholesale price to the butcher for whole sides of ration quality imported bone-in-beef is 8d. per lb.

Commander Noble: If these figures are not available, could the hon. Lady say how other countries, especially countries in the British Commonwealth, are to know what are the prices with which they are competing?

Dr. Summerskill: I should have thought that to the simplest intelligence it would be quite clear that that is the reason why we do not reveal them.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: In view of the information given by the Minister on Monday night, comparing the new prices with the old, and in view of the disclosure of certain old prices from time to time, why cannot we have this matter disclosed, instead of endeavouring to discover the answer by putting bits and pieces together?

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on Monday night my right hon. and learned


Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear that this was our policy.

Preserves (Ration)

Mr. Peter Roberts: asked the Minister of Food whether he will forthwith double the ration of preserves, at the same time making such increase in the preserve ration not exchangeable for sugar.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that we are not in a position to do this.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that in the Sheffield area and, I think, in the rest of the country, the stocks of jam in the grocers' shops are full, and the manufacturers have a surplus in reserve? Could not some of it be distributed, and so have the effect of bringing down the price of jam?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I do not deny that there is plenty of jam in Sheffield just now, but he must realise that there are special factors operating. We have just made an issue of bitter oranges, with the result that women are taking sugar in lieu of jam. If we find, later on, that we have a surplus, we are quite prepared to give a bonus issue. The House must remember that a bonus issue represents 20,000 tons.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is the Minister aware that the majority of women will resent the fact that they have to buy jam, rather than have the opportunity to make pure, wholesome jam?

Bread Units (Checking)

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that all the BR2 forms when returned after use by the Bread Distributing Trade are properly scrutinised and used by the Ministry of Food for checking and statistical purposes.

Dr. Summerskill: A proportion of the returns furnished by the Bread Distributing Trade is checked each period, and in such cases the forms are scrutinised.

Mr. Roberts: What proportion is checked?

Dr. Summerskill: A varying proportion is checked every period. Obviously for enforcement reasons, we do not always take the same proportion.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that, in point of fact, no checking is done at all, and everyone in the distributing business, except herself, realises that this bread rationing machinery is not working at all, and will she take some action, either to see that the proper machinery works or take it off?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Are the apparently numerous bakers who never collect any bread units at any disadvantage compared with those who do?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask the hon. Lady if there is any obligation now on traders to collect B.U.s, as I know for a fact that a large number in Glasgow do not collect them?

Dr. Summerskill: Most bakers have some ethical standard.

Mr. Osborne: Is not this one of the controls that could be removed?

Mr. Roberts: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Milk Distribution

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Food if he is yet able to make a statement with regard to the relaxation of the restrictions on milk distribution; and can citizens now change their milkman should they so wish.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 23rd February.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Lady, on that occasion said that the milk restriction regulation was being reviewed, and that she would be able to make a statement in the near future. Could she give some indication when that will be?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I did not answer that Question, it was my right hon. Friend. He said he was anxious to publish the report of the Committee on Milk Distribution, and we are about to do so.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would the hon. Lady's Department now have the faith


and courage to restore the consumers' choice of milk supply, and see what happens?

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is the hon. Lady aware that these restrictions are a source of very great annoyance to many members of the public, and could some action be taken?

Mr. Jennings: Is not the hon. Lady aware that there are many cases referred to her, particularly from Sheffield, where people are having to buy the type of milk they do not want, and that it is time that this regulation was done away with?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it a fact that if a person leaves his milk retailer to join the "Co-op," that person can change his retailer?

Potatoes

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Food whether he has any statement to make with regard to the rationing of potatoes.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir; except that, provided the weather does not interfere with the loading, my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to maintain the present weekly allowances per head until the end of March.

Colonel Ropner: Is the hon. Lady aware that we want to know when this

rationing is going to cease? Is her Department not yet able to give an indication when the rationing will be brought to an end?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it would be rather stupid to announce anything of that kind now. We shall wait until the end of March, and my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

Aged People (Milk Allocation)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that milk is a most digestible form of food for elderly people, he will consider allowing them, where they so desire, to surrender their cheese ration in exchange for a higher allocation of milk.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid this is not at the moment a practicable suggestion. We have not enough milk.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Lady aware that many old people cannot digest part of their ration, particularly the cheese ration, and surely, as milk goes into the making of cheese, my suggestion would save milk?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has forgotten one important factor, which is that milk is home produced, and cheese is imported, and that there would be an uncompensated drain.

Orders of the Day — RIVER BOARDS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.34 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which has already passed a very close scrutiny in another place, contains important provisions for a unified control of the river systems in England and Wales. Fishery boards under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, have done, and are still doing, very valuable work. The same can be said of catchment boards which were established under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Each of these authorities has, of course, a complete control over one or more important river systems. But, unfortunately, the unsavoury state of many of our rivers is a painful witness to the inadequacy of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. There are, of course, exceptions in the Thames and Lee Valley, and in certain parts of Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the authorities have complete powers under local Acts and are not frustrated by the neglect of neighbouring authorities. Taking the country as a whole, there are far too many authorities dealing with pollution, there being no fewer than 1,600.
It is clear, therefore, that for the prevention of pollution, as in the case of both drainage and fisheries, each river system ought to come under the control of one authority. That is the first thing which this Bill sets out to do. It may be regarded as a simple reform, but I think that it will have far-reaching results. The Bill goes further than that. Measures of control are needed, as works required with regard to drainage, fisheries, and prevention of pollution, are often complementary and interlocking. We believe that these matters are best dealt with as a whole by one authority rather than by the three authorities as is the case at the moment. It is our hope, therefore, than any differences can be resolved round the table and a unified policy developed.
The Bill provides for the setting up of river boards to take over existing powers of catchment boards, fishery boards and

pollution authorities. The river boards will closely co-operate with navigation authorities. They will both have a common interest in maintaining the river banks and keeping rivers free from obstruction. In odd cases it may very well be that it would be sensible for the river board to become a navigation authority and, with full and proper safeguards, the Bill enables this to be done. To complete the picture, river boards will clearly have a major interest in both rainfall and river flow, for this knowledge must be fundamental to their work. Therefore, the Bill provides for the measurement and recording of rainfall and river flow by river boards and for the payment of grants for construction of gauges and other necessary works. Such information, when collected, will be made available to the Ministry of Health, providing a continuous up-to-date record of over ground water resources never before available for planning our national water policy. These are important and, I believe, far-reaching requirements.
But that is not quite the end of the story. The powers the new river boards are taking over are not nearly as comprehensive as perhaps many hon. Members, including myself, may wish. A great advance in drainage legislation was made by a minority Socialist Government in 1930. I believe that that Act worked very well indeed. It has saved for us scores of thousands of acres of land which otherwise might not have been available for food production. But after some 18 years, the time is ripe for a further improvement. The same applies to the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876 which has not worked so well. The fundamental defect was the multiplicity of authorities on different stretches of the same river. I hope that this Bill will remedy that, after 70 years in which little or nothing has been done.
Even with regard to pollution, I think the powers need modernising. When the Central Advisory Water Committee was set up in 1945, the Government requested them to set up a sub-committee to review pollution legislation and make recommendations. They have now set up another sub-committee to examine the question of land drainage, and both these sub-committees are now actively at work. In these circumstances, the Government thought it right to exclude altogether from this Bill any general amendment of exist-


ing powers, in regard to either pollution or drainage. I have no doubt that, during the course of the Debate, many suggestions will be made, and I may say that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture are not without ideas themselves, but these matters, at the moment, are more or less sub judice, and I trust that the House will agree that we must deal with them in proper stages.
The administrative reforms contained in this Bill take us a long step forward. They prepare us for the next stage—the modernisation of drainage law and pollution law—and, once the two subcommittees have reported and made their recommendations, I hope that either this Government or some Government will not hesitate to proceed according to those recommendations. The setting up of these rivers boards, 29 in all, will be a long job. Indeed, it may very well be that, before the last river board has been finally established, we shall be ready with amending legislation, but, in the meantime, the new boards will exercise all the existing powers concerning drainage, fisheries and pollution.
The Bill, as outlined, is broadly based on the recommendations of the Central Advisory Water Committee in their third Report of August, 1943, which was generally endorsed by the Coalition Government; in other words, it was an agreed Measure in 1943, and I hope it will be an agreed Measure in 1948. Some details, however, had to be worked out, and several vital decisions had to be taken. For instance, the extent and definition of river boards areas, the composition of the river boards, and, of course, their finance, and I shall more or less confine my remarks to those three vital things. Despite our "sweet reasonableness" during the past several months, I fear that we have not been able to please everybody. There are so many interests involved that we have proceeded by way of the normal, natural, British compromise, and I think that we have reached a fair balance. None the less, I shall listen with great attention to any observations which hon. Members may care to make, although I anticipate in advance that they will more or less cancel each other out and prove that we have reached a fair balance.
Clause I requires the Ministries of Health and Agriculture to define river

board areas for the whole of England and Wales, except London and the Thames and Lee Valley Catchment Areas. We take the view that on all the river systems in the country problems of drainage, fisheries and pollution arise to some extent. Then there is the need for measurement of all water resources. For this reason, all areas should be brought under control and equipped with proper powers, excluding, of course, London and the Thames and Lee Valleys, who have almost identical powers with those embodied in this Bill. We are, however, giving to them the powers and duties of gauging in their own interests and to complete the water records for the whole country. If, later on, these areas wish to be brought under a river board system, then Clause 7 makes provision for that to be done. The provisions of Clause I mean that all parts of the country, whatever their situation, will contribute through rates to the expenses of the river boards, and that implies that some areas will contribute for the first time to the cost of drainage in this country. We think, and I hope the House agrees, that it is just and fair for all the community to contribute to these services, just as they contribute to the health and highways services and other communal services in the country.
Not only local authorities, however, are concerned. There are many other interests involved in the manner in which the country is finally divided up. We all know the outline of the jigsaw puzzle, namely, the coast line of Britain. With the exceptions which I have mentioned of London and the Thames and Lee Valley areas, for the rest of England and Wales, the Milne Committee, on whose recommendations this Bill is founded, tried its hand at dividing the country into separate areas. It was clear, however, from the very start, that every area would be hotly contested, and that it would mean something like a super Speaker's Conference to bring about harmony among the various interests. I should like to emphasise that the boundaries of catchment boards and fishery interests rarely coincide, and they never agree with the boundaries of the pollution authorities, which are more or less based on local government areas. Not unnaturally, each district desires to be tacked on to its rich neighbour, and few have wanted to be tacked on to their poorer neighbours.
I simply mention these examples to show the unwisdom of trying to schedule areas in a Bill of this kind. Rather is it far better to leave it to set up each area separately after the Bill has been passed into law. In a word, we want to establish a system of river boards that will endure, and to do so will call for a lot of tact and a good deal of patience at the same time. We shall see that all the various interests have their say, and we shall study all the implications, and then I hope we shall be able to go ahead. The Bill itself provides for consultation at all stages, and, in the last resort, should any objections not be withdrawn, then orders defining river board areas can be taken to Parliament under special Parliamentary procedure. The various local considerations, we thought, could not be adequately argued out on the Floor of the House of Commons, and we think the way we are going is the most democratic way.
The composition of the river boards also raises certain controversial issues. Here, we have endeavoured to settle the broad framework and much detail in Clause 2. Parliament will, of course, settle the general questions of principle in the Bill itself, and it should not be necessary, if objections are pressed here, for detailed proposals for individual boards to come back to Parliament later, for all these are matters that ought to be left to the responsible Minister or Ministers in charge. I should like, before explaining the detailed provisions in Clause 2, to refer to the questions of principle on which it is based, since the details will follow naturally from these general principles, and any proposals for amendment must be tested against them. We want the boards to be small enough to be manageable and yet large enough to enable the area to be adequately covered, and we decided on 40 as a maximum membership, compared with 31 for catchment boards, and we want the members of the boards to work together as a team.
River boards will have many functions, and their work will affect a variety of interests. We want these different interests, where they appear to conflict, to be capable of being harmonised by the board. They will have members directly concerned with their main functions, such as drainage and fishery interests, but these specialists, in my view, are not there as spokesmen for their special

interests. They are there to contribute their knowledge and experience to the unified working of the board. It has been suggested that interests such as industry, water undertakings, navigation authorities and so on should have direct representation on the boards, but that is not the way in which our local government in this country has been built up, and smooth working is not likely to be achieved by any board composed of the spokesmen of a variety of interests. We should more likely get a series of dogfights, and very few sensible objective decisions. Moreover, such a board representing all the various interests would, perhaps, be too unwieldy, and, in the end, the interests would not get the protection which their advocates desire.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: My right hon. Friend talked just now of fishery interests. Does he comprise and include in fishery interests anglers, as such, and organisations which they represent, because that is a point about which many fishermen feel rather strongly?

Mr. Williams: When one refers to fishery interests, one means fishery interests in their fullest sense. I do not see how I can provide a better interpretation than that.
We propose that local government authorities, who will contribute substantial sums to the revenue of the board, should have the right to appoint a majority of the members. These representatives will have a broad, varied knowledge and experience of the activities and interests of the authority which appoints them to the board. In other words, they are representatives in a most comprehensive sense. I believe they can be relied upon, as they were as members of catchment boards, to secure a broadminded, wise, and progressive administration, harmonising the activities of the board with all the local interests affected by them.
In the Land Drainage Act, however, there was a discrimination against county borough councils, for, however much their ratepayers contribute to the revenue of the board, they may not appoint more than half the local authority membership. In relation to river boards, we think it proper to abolish that discrimination. I do not believe they will use their power to oppose necessary expenditure; neither


do I believe that they will be split into various factions—county council, county borough, drainage, and fishery factions. On the contrary, I think that urban and rural interests will, in future, as they are doing in many areas today, work together as a team, aiming at good drainage, clean rivers, and pleasant sport for the fishermen whose interests my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) represents.
We are limiting membership to those interests which contribute direct to the funds of the Board, or which are concerned with the main activities—land drainage and fisheries. One member will be appointed by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. For the rest, the team will be composed of persons appointed, by county councils, county borough councils, and by the Minister of Agriculture to represent drainage boards and fishery interests in the river board area.
The burning question is, of course, how shall we divide up this representation? Many different views have been put forward, but I am afraid they are very largely partial. The popular view is that the division should be according to the contributions paid to the board. This is the basis on which local authority representation will be divided between county councils and borough councils—a proper basis, because they are like authorities. The view of the Government is that a different approach is needed in allocating membership between drainage and fishery specialists, and local authority members.
If hon. Members were to take the view, which the Government reject, that river boards will be battlefields of conflicting interests, it might be regarded as fair that those drainage boards which contribute the majority of the revenue should have the majority, or nearly so, of the membership of a river board. However, if that line were taken, then they must accept the converse, namely, that, in areas where drainage boards contribute little or nothing to the revenue, they should have little or no membership of the river board. The Government do not take that view; we do not think of these boards in terms of voting power, and there is no question about it of either fairness or unfairness. The sole object is to secure a balanced team. Every member has, or should have,

a contribution to make, regardless of the sources from which the revenue is derived.
After all, the specialists are only experts on two functions, no matter how important those functions may be. On the other hand, river boards have a wide range of functions affecting many interests. This, obviously, calls for very strong local authority membership. Apart from this, local authority members are often experts on drainage and fishery matters. Some of the very best catchment board chairmen in the country were appointed by one or other local authority. Therefore, we need have no fear that the boards will be lacking in either sympathy or knowledge in regard to either drainage or fishery matters. Should any river boards forget the interest of fishermen—the anglers in particular—it will not take the anglers very long to remind them of their duty. Particularly will that be the position so far as local authority representatives are concerned.
Therefore, with such varied activities affecting so many interests, local authorities must, I repeat, have a majority of members. Indeed, I very much doubt whether the community which pays the rates would have confidence in the boards were that not so. On the other hand—and I would like to stress this—drainage and fishery interests must have a substantial proportion of the membership, however much or however little they contribute financially. After all, their advice and knowledge will be urgently needed. We know that the financial contributions from different sources will vary greatly from one area to another, just as, indeed, will the amount of work to be done, but that in no way affects the issue. In some areas where drainage is of special importance, such as, say, the Fens, in which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is keenly interested, it might be of advantage to have one or two extra members from drainage boards, but I can see no possible advantage in any greater flexibility than that.
I am afraid I have dealt rather at length with this matter because the Government originally proposed that, after the one member had been appointed, local authorities should appoint not more than two-thirds or less than three-fifths of the members. But, in another place,


despite the arguments I have just advanced—I hope fairly—the minimum local representation was reduced to one-half of the board. The Government do not agree with that change, and we propose to move an Amendment in Committee to reinstate the original provision. It may, on the face of it, appear a very small matter. I am satisfied, however, that it is fundamental to restore the balance which we sought to achieve in the constitutional provisions of this Bill. It was argued in another place—I do not want to enter into strong arguments now—that, after all, it was only permissive, and that I need not use the power if I did not wish to. All I have to say is that I do not want the power since I am never likely to use it, and that I do not want any of my successors to be tempted by it.
The Minister of Agriculture will determine the allocation of members between drainage and fishery authorities, having regard to the relative importance in each area, and he will appoint those members when the boards have been constituted. I have looked quite sympathetically at proposals involving the direct appointment of the interests concerned, or of appointments from various panels, but we think that such proposals would be administratively unworkable, and are also unnecessary. Moreover, we are naturally anxious to appoint the best possible representatives of both drainage and fishery interests, and we shall, therefore, consult widely with people who are best able to advise, namely, the local interests themselves. Indeed, the Bill requires us to do so, even if common sense did not dictate this course.
Clause 2(5) contains a provision whereby larger county districts may, in appropriate cases, nominate persons for appointment by the county council as part of their membership of the river board. I think that is right, because the dividing line between some county boroughs and larger county districts is often very narrow, and in some counties one or two districts provide large parts of the county council precept. This provision, therefore, seems a proper one, and it will help to broaden the interests of larger county districts in the activities of the board.

Mr. Alpass: Is that actually the case? Is not the county council precept spread over the whole county?

Mr. Williams: In some counties one or two of the county districts pay a very

large proportion of the county rate. Therefore, we give them the right to nominate to the county council a proportion of the county council representation on a river board. Subsection (7) of Clause 2 continues for river boards a long-standing arrangement under which colliery owners in the Doncaster area, where mining subsidence creates important drainage problems, have representation on the Trent and Ouse catchment boards. Later in the Bill, in Clause 8 (4) we have provided for an additional member to be appointed by the Minister of Transport to represent navigation functions where those interests are of substantial importance.

Mr. Keeling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the constitution of the river boards, would he deal with a point which is the cause of very real difficulty on both sides of this House? I think the sooner he deals with this question the better. He said that all interests would be represented; he also said that local authorities would have a majority of the nominations. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 provides that the higher the rateable value of a district, the greater the representation on the river board. But in most cases the higher the rateable value the greater will be the probability of pollution. Amenity, on the other hand, has no rateable value. How, then, will the interests of amenity be represented on these boards? I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has not even mentioned the question of amenity.

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that the hon. Member, who is so closely identified with local government, would at once have seen that the local authority representatives would be the representatives of amenity.

Mr. Keeling: There is no obligation on the local authority to take amenity into account.

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that members of a town, urban or city council were appointed because of their wide and varied knowledge, and of the general interests they represent within their township or area. As these river boards will finally form very large local government authorities themselves, they will be responsible for amenities.

Mr. Perrins: The Minister has touched on every conceivable representation but one, namely, the interests of the people who use the river as drinking water. For example, Birmingham gets its water from Rhayader, 54 miles away. There are two small rivers, the Elan and Claerwen, which run into the Wye. Birmingham has no county interest to secure representation, although 1,200,000 people have their water from Rhayader, and in addition, we have waterworks undertakings there. Does my right hon. Friend propose that there shall be a provision for the water consumer interests to have representation on the board?

Mr. Williams: It is not generally understood that a drainage authority is responsible not only for sending surplus water off to the sea as quickly as possible, but also for the provision in certain areas of water for thinking purposes. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend, quite obviously Birmingham, a very large ratepayer, will have quite a sizeable representation on the river board affecting Birmingham, and, to that extent, it will have direct representation.

Mr. Perrins: What I wish to know is whether Birmingham will be given representation on the river board in the area from which it takes its water.

Mr. Williams: That depends on the geographical subdivision of the river board area.
Now I come to the all-important question of finance. The Bill largely reproduces the financial structure of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The revenues of river boards will be secured, in part, from precepts by county councils and county boroughs in the river board area, and they will inherit the powers of catchment boards to require contributions from local drainage boards and to secure such revenue as may be available from the issue of fishery licences and levying fishery rates. Grants from my own Department, of course, will still be available under Clause 55 of the 1930 Act in respect of land drainage works, and will be extended to cover expenditure on the installation of gauges. I would refer particularly to Clause 10 (3). Under the Land Drainage Act, catchment boards can, on their own decision, levy a precept up to the produce of a 2d. rate on county

councils and county borough councils. Precepts above that rate, however, can be, and in many cases are, levied, but only with the consent of a majority of members who are appointed to the catchment boards by local authorities.
In this Bill we have reproduced the same conditions, except that we have substituted a 4d. for a 2d. precept. There are many factors to account for this. In comparison with catchment boards, river boards will exercise functions in relation to fisheries, prevention of pollution, gauging and possibly navigation. I need hardly say that the cost of works, administration, maintenance and wages have all increased considerably since 1930. River boards will be administering functions and drawing revenue from areas previously entirely outside catchment board jurisdiction. For all these reasons we think the figure of 4d. is appropriate. We do not rule out any subsequent review of this figure, which may be proposed by the sub-committee reviewing the problem of either drainage or pollution, but 4d. seems the appropriate figure for this Bill.
I must emphasise the reason for this provision. I am not suggesting that the product of a 4d. rate is the most that should ever be provided by local authorities in any area to meet the cost of all the functions of river boards. Far from it. The needs will obviously vary from area to area. I believe that local authorities will vote whatever is reasonably necessary to carry out their work effectively, but it would clearly be wrong to give river boards which are only partially composed of members appointed by rating authorities, an unlimited right to impose a charge upon rates. Some limit, therefore, had to be fixed at which the decision to increase the precept will rest with persons appointed by rating authorities, and this Bill, therefore, fixes that limit.
I need not traverse in detail the remaining Clauses of the Bill which raise few or no general policy issues. On various matters, such as borrowing powers, acquisition of land, powers of entry and making of by-laws, the Bill provides a uniform up-to-date procedure to replace the differing procedures for separate functions under existing legislation. On certain other issues, such as the power to promote legislation, default powers and holding of inquiries, we are assimilating the procedure


applicable to river boards, which will be important local authorities, to that applicable to local government authorities under the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Public Health Act, 1936. In particular, we are providing in Clause 28 that officers of the river boards shall come within the scope of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the Clause also deals with transfer of pension rights, and Clause 29 provides for compensation for displaced persons on the lines of recent legislation.
Although this is a non-political Measure, I should like, in conclusion, to make what I think is one valid political point. Although the policy under the Bill is agreed, it is, after all, a Socialist Government which found time to introduce it. We have all heard a lot about the scandal of pollution, for many years, yet nothing has been done over the past 70 years, and it is left for a very hard-pressed post-war Socialist Government to do the job, as well as setting up the two sub-committees to which I have referred to carry the thing a stage further. We trust these two sub-committees will carry on the good work.
Moreover, it would not be out of place if I were to remind the House that it was a minority Socialist Government which passed the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which led to many important developments in this field. In fact, as we stand at the moment, our food production expansion programme demands efficient drainage all over the country and, whatever the cost, I am one of those who believe it is a sound long-term national investment. I therefore commend this Bill to the House as an important advance in the control of our river system. I also commend it as being in the tradition of my party, which has always been concerned with good local administration and, certainly, has always been concerned with the full development of our natural resources.

4.13 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The Minister has given a very full discourse on the Measure before the House, but I cannot agree with the last passages of his speech. It may be that a Socialist Administration has brought in the actual text of this Bill, but, as the Minister himself said, the whole Bill is based on the

third Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which was issued in August, 1943, under a Coalition Government, in which the party on this side of the House had a very preponderant majority. My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House do not consider this is a Measure which divides the House on party lines, very largely because of that fact, and because the objects of this Bill are accepted by all parties and by all Members, in whatever part of the House they sit. On this side of the House, we consider this Measure to be a useful preliminary, and nothing more, to further reforms which are needed for the better management of our river system in England and Wales.
At the present time, there are in England 45 fishery boards, 53 catchment boards dealing with land drainage, and some 1,600 pollution authorities. In addition, there are many areas not covered at all by any catchment board authority. Under this Bill, it is proposed to replace all these authorities by river boards which will cover the whole of the country, with the exception of London and the Thames and Lee Catchment Board areas. We on this side of the House accept the need for the proposed change to enlarge the administrative units responsible for our waterways. In effect, this is all the present Bill accomplishes. It does not propose to alter the law or to take any new power, and much will have to be done before we can deal with the problem of pollution and improvement in the land drainage system. The only new powers taken under this Bill are in Clause 9, which deals specifically with the conservation of water resources and the provision of information in regard to each river board area. We accept these new proposals and agree with them, because we believe it is important that, not only should our waterways be made clean, but, looking into the far distant future, our water supplies should be conserved in every way possible.
Even in this last year, 1947, we had an extreme example of how, in certain parts of the country, we could get in a very short period of time alternative disasters due to floods and drought. In the spring of 1947, the House will remember, great damage was caused by floods, which were followed in the early summer by extensive drought in many districts. It is hoped


that when the river boards become established, they will be suitable units to deal with this particular problem, although it may be a very long time before we see that position materialise.
The Minister has told us that the number of river boards is likely to be in the nature of 29 and that, no doubt, he has adopted from what is known as the Milne Committee's Report. I would like to refer to one curious omission from this Report, because I believe it is of great interest to hon. Members from West Country constituencies; in the map attached to this Report, out of all the areas in England and Wales, the County of Cornwall is completely blank, and apparently there is no provision for any river board in that county. I do not want to dwell any further upon that point, but if hon. Members from that part of the country should happen to catch your eye later in the Debate, Mr. Speaker, no doubt that point will be developed, because it seems curious that this important area should have been left out of the considerations of that Committee.
The Minister referred in his speech to navigation authorities, but I am not quite clear in what manner it is proposed that the river boards will co-operate with these authorities. Clause 8 deals with this point, and Subsection (4) provides for an additional member to be appointed by the Minister of Transport in certain cases. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to give us some more information on this point, and I would like to ask him the specific question whether, where navigational problems arise—as, for example, the areas with which I am particularly familiar, the Humber and the Tees—there will be some special organisation linked up with the river boards, to deal with them, as at present conceded in the case of the River Thames. I would like to have some more information on that point, if it is possible, at the end of the Debate.
I turn next to finance. The Minister dealt fully with the financial provisions of the Bill in which, he explained, the revenues of the river boards will follow the financial structure of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The areas will now be larger and, in future, the river boards will be entitled to levy a precept of 4d., instead of 2d. We consider this increase

reasonable, but I ask the Minister whether the new river boards to be set up under this Bill will be empowered to finance the small internal drainage boards, or whether an Amendment will be necessary to the Land Drainage Act, 1930? I ask this question because I understand that in many cases, owing to the incidence of drainage rates, the financial arrangements for small internal drainage boards are wholly unsatisfactory at the present time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some more information on the matter.
Having in those general terms reviewed the set-up of the river boards, I turn to the three major points on which there are acute differences of opinion; although I think I am correct in saying that they in no way follow party lines. The first is the composition of the river boards; the second, the method of appointing the members of the boards; and the third, the prevention of pollution. For the most part, the details of the differences of opinion are Committee points with which we shall deal later. However, in regard to the composition of the river boards, a point of real substance has emerged from the Minister's speech.
I was really shocked to hear that the Minister proposes in Committee to move an Amendment to restore the original provision by which the representatives of county councils and county boroughs should not be less than three-fifths of the members of the river boards. In another place there were no fewer than four different occasions when Debates took place on this subject. The Government's representative in those Debates—and I have read them very carefully—was most sympathetic to the views expressed in them; and finally, after various suggestions had been made, the Bill was amended to substitute one-half in place of three-fifths. Why cannot the Minister accept the views expressed in the Debates in another place? I understand it is possible that the County Boroughs and the County Councils Association may not like the Amendment which was made, but I also understand, so far as the County Councils Association are concerned, that they do not intend to oppose the Amendment which was made. The Minister says in his defence that he does not want this additional latitude, and he expects us to use the argument that the Clause, as


drafted now, is merely permissive. I think it is a very strong argument. Nobody is asking the Minister to do anything definitely. All that the Clause, as drafted now, does is to give the Minister power, should he think fit, to appoint up to one-half of the members of the boards to represent interests other than those of county or county borough councils. It seems to be a commonsense and reasonable attitude to adopt to give the Minister this discretionary power, and yet he comes to the House today and spoils the extremely good case for this Bill by striking this sledge hammer into the works.

Mr. Alpass: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put the case for the Amendment concerning the representation of those authorities?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I am just about to do that. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to it. We accept straight away the fact that, in the case of the majority of the catchment boards, the greater part of their revenue comes from local authorities. In certain areas, however, the position is completely reversed. There may not be many of those areas, but there are areas where the position is definitely reversed. I will refer in detail to only one. In the Welland Catchment Board area, which is likely, I understand, to become one of the new river board areas, in the year 1946–47 the local authorities contributed £6,970 towards the total expenditure of that board. The internal drainage board contribution to that board amounted to no less than £25,532.
Can anybody, by the widest stretch of imagination, say that, if the Minister alters the Bill as he has said he intends to do, in that particular catchment area the principle underlying the Bill will be followed, namely, that representation should follow the amount of contribution to the board? I am at an absolute loss to understand why the Minister should take this attitude on this particular matter, because this power is only permissive. No doubt, we shall argue this further on the Committee stage, and my hon. Friends and I will, no doubt, put forward other arguments to try to convince the Minister.
I turn to the second bone of contention—the method of appointing members of the river boards. Those members to be

appointed by county councils and county borough councils are selected by the local authorities on the basis of how much the ratepayers of those authorities contribute to the revenue of the river boards. There may be points of detail concerning that to discuss in Committee. The remaining members of the boards are to be appointed by the Minister to represent drainage boards and fishery interests. The Minister referred to other organisations and bodies which hope for representation on the river boards. I should like to support the remarks which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) made just now about amenities. The Minister did not mention amenities in his speech. I think that definitely amenities ought to be considered during the later stages of the Bill. I know that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England is very anxious in regard to this point. On the other hand, it would be quite impossible to allow to sit on the boards representatives of all the people who hope to be members of the boards under the scheme as it exists today. However, I think there is room for discussion of the matter in Committee.
As far as the drainage and fishery interests are concerned, I am sorry that the Minister did not agree that appointments should be made directly from panels nominated by the interests concerned. I would refer briefly to the fishery interests, because they feel very acutely that, under this Bill, they are to be deprived of a right which they have had up to the present time. Under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, the scope of their representation on fishery boards was increased giving all classes of fishery interests a right to be represented. Under this Bill that will not be the case.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a little clearer the reply given to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) as to exactly what the term "fishery interests" in Clause 2 means. Does it include upstream anglers and riparian owners, as well as commercial fishermen in the estuaries and mouths of our rivers? We want an answer "Yes" or "No," and not the general observation, "Fishery interests are fishery interests," because that would not make the position any clearer. I ask the Minister to consider, between now and Committee stage, the possibility of giving these


fishery interests the right to form a statutory fisheries committee, in order that they may appoint representatives to serve on the boards when asked to do so by the Minister. They constitute a considerable body of people; I understand that there are a million anglers in Great Britain, some of whom no doubt live in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but the majority of whom reside in England or Wales.
Apart from hoping that these upstream anglers will be able to enjoy their fishing in the years to come as they have done in the past, I wonder whether the Minister has ever considered that automatically these anglers are as good as unpaid wardens for all the river boards in the areas in which they fish. The fish will spot pollution long before a human being. If a stream is polluted the fish will die, and the river board will hear about it more quickly from the anglers than through any of the complex machinery which has to be gone through under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. There seems to be a very strong case for allowing these people representation, first, to show that they are not forgotten, and secondly, because I believe they would be of great service to the river boards in the areas in which they fish.
I know that many of my hon. Friends have questions to ask in regard to the evil of pollution, which is growing worse every year, and the cost and time involved under the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, no doubt prevent effective action from being taken. We note from the Minister's speech that the Government are now awaiting a report from the Central Advisory Water Committee's sub-committee on pollution legislation. We are pleased to hear from the Minister that legislation on this subject might be introduced before all the river boards have been established. Can the Minister indicate when the report will be available; whether it will be available to hon. Members; and whether he will give an undertaking that, when it does become available, he will lose no time in investigating these problems with great urgency? As I see it, no river board set up under this Bill will be able to tackle the evil of pollution as long as there are countless pollution authorities responsible for different stretches of the same stream. I hope the Minister will

be able to give some assurance on that point.
The Minister appeared very confident that these river boards would not break up into factions. I hope he is right, because if they do break up into factions, the time of this House, and of everybody engaged in this legislation, will have been wasted. It is vital that members of each river board should become river board minded. In our counties and county boroughs, local loyalties have grown up during the passage of years. The essence of local government is that it should be local, and we on this side of the House are often at variance with hon. Members opposite when they try to control our local authorities from Whitehall. Many county boroughs have football teams of which they are proud, and which are famous throughout the country; and the same can be said of counties which have cricket elevens. All those activities build up local pride.
Under this Bill we are creating machinery for a new type of local authority—the river board. Although members of the board may be appointed for various reasons, it is essential, if the objects of the Bill are to be achieved, that their main consideration should be for the river board area as a whole—from the river sources in the hills, down through the valleys and the rural districts where drainage is of such vital importance to our agricultural industry, past the great cities where the prevention of pollution will be the chief pre-occupation of the river boards, until finally, as we hope, clean water flows out from the estuaries of our rivers into the ocean. If that spirit can be instilled into every citizen who becomes a member of a river board, and if the river boards are given the necessary powers or amending legislation to the Land Drainage Act and the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, I believe that in the fullness of time this Bill will achieve its objects, the results of which will be of great benefit to our national life.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Deer: While I welcome the Bill as a co-ordinating and administrative Measure, I must express regret that we could not have waited a little longer in order to incorporate into the machinery of this Bill the promised amendment to the Land Drainage Act and the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act.


I feel that we are taking two bites, as it were, when it would have been far better to clear up all our difficulties in one comprehensive Bill. When this Bill becomes an Act and we have set up our river board authorities we shall be faced with the problem that the difficulties which arise out of the anomalies we encounter today in respect of land drainage—particularly the financial provisions for land drainage—will still be with us. However, here we have the first stage, and I support the idea of having a larger authority with additional powers.
The question of representation is one which vitally affects many of my constituents, and I compliment the Minister upon his decision to return to its original form the percentage which was altered in another place. In a moment I will give my reasons for saying that. The important thing is that today many local authorities feel that in the operation of the Land Drainage Act they are under-represented on the basis of their financial payments towards drainage. There is another side of this, which I think hon. Members may have forgotten. I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) quote the case of the Welland Catchment Board, where the amount collected directly from local authorities was much less than that taken by the internal drainage boards. He argued, therefore, that there was a case for the drainage boards to have more representation, and for the local authorities to have less.
I will give an example which may be of interest to Members. In Lincoln we pay a drainage rate to the Witham and Steeping Rivers Catchment Board. The rate is now 2d.—it will be 3½d. Against that, we have three internal drainage boards, and the equivalent of a 1s. 4d. rate is collected, if we take into consideration what the ratepayers are paying to the internal drainage boards. In other words, the small ratepayer and the large ratepayer, who come within the drainage area laid down for the city, pay a considerably larger sum for internal drainage than the sum levied by the main authority. I suggest that the Minister, in considering how the county borough of Lincoln shall be represented, should not take into consideration this problematic 2d. or 4d., but should take into consideration the fact that we are paying the equivalent to a 1s. 4d. rate.
I will give an example of how this works out. The agricultural land surrounding the area pays anything between 1s. 6d. and 10s. 6d. an acre for drainage. That is the average paid to the internal drainage boards. On the other hand, a working-class district with normal working-class houses assessed at £13 a year, taking one-third of the average annual value, pays between 2£ to £50 per acre. In the case of a business area, with banks, shops and so on, it has to pay £500 per acre.
With figures like these, it must surely be entirely wrong to argue that agricultural areas must have an over-riding claim for representation. We are having to pay these large sums by way of drainage rates, but our representation is entirely inadequate. In the case of two drainage areas the city pays over 50 per cent. of the total drainage rate, whereas in one case we represent less than one per cent. of the area, while in the second case we pay 58 per cent. of the total drainage rate and represent only 5 per cent. of the area. In view of the fact that three drainage areas enter the city, and the bulk of their money comes from the city ratepayers, who are inadequately represented on the internal drainage boards, it will be appreciated that we regard the amendment of the present Land Drainage Act as more important than the machinery provided by this Bill.
I urge the Minister to give us at the earliest possible moment the right to place our case before the sub-committee which is to report to him. I understand that the general case of the municipal corporations is being met, and it is therefore, being suggested that there is no need for aggrieved municipalities to make individual representations. I contest that. I suggest that the figures I have given prove that a city like Lincoln should be able to go to the sub-committee and influence them in coming to their decision and giving their advice to the Minister. I urge the Minister to give local authorities the largest possible representation, based on the principle that he who pays the piper should call the tune.
This situation is not peculiar to my area, but is typical of the position throughout the country. If we take the case of the Ouse Catchment Board, we find that Leeds and Sheffield provide half the money by precept, but have only four represen-


tatives, while the rest of West Riding have 10. That sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. People who are being mulcted by drainage rates ought to be given a fair deal by having representation based on the amount of money paid out. The water boards are obviously more interested in prevention of pollution than anyone else, and their claims for representation are as important as any other sectional claims which are being made.
Drainage is a national service, and it should be developed nationally by means of grants. It would be much better to deal with it in this way, than merely to raise the amount of contribution from local authorities from 2d. to 4d. I do not know what is the reason for this change, except perhaps the difference in money values. On the other hand, it is significant that many of the main catchment boards are still managing on a 2d. rate. The Severn and the Trent, and others, are still only calling for a 2d. rate. I think it would be much better to wait until we got the further legislation, instead of dealing with the matter in this Bill. It may be that we shall see recommendations calling for additional national grants, which would be a better way of dealing with the problem.
While welcoming this Bill, I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the unfair deal which many local authorities and ratepayers have had, the unfair representation they have had, and the unfair burden they have had to carry. I hope that in the new machinery which will be provided my constituents and others will be able firmly to believe that they are getting a square deal, instead of having to pay a drainage rate out of all proportion to what they ought to pay while, at the same time, being subject to flooding. In my constituency, men came round in a boat to collect the drainage rate because of the flooding in the streets. The floods of last year were unprecedented in my area. Only half the area which was alleged to be subject to flooding was, in fact, flooded, yet the other half still had to pay the drainage rate, although it was completely proved that they ought not to have been called on to do so as the flood level was based on a flooding which took place in the 1700's, when another river, the River Trent, broke its banks. My constituents are thoroughly indignant

about it, and will, I am sure, welcome the amending legislation which will be a corollary to this Bill.

4.53 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I hope the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) will forgive me if I do not follow in detail some of the points he has raised today, although I hope to be able to show that there are two points of view about representation on river boards. It is not necessarily the man who pays who is interested in the welfare of rivers. The Minister said that nothing had been done in the past by way of legislation to protect our rivers. The trouble about past legislation, to a large extent, has been that it has aimed at maintaining the status quo; it has tended to say, "Let us make matters no worse." Now we have reached the stage where most of our rivers are in such a bad condition that when we have legislation which will give river boards power to act, I trust it will not be of the same order, but will give the boards power to take action not only to keep rivers in their present condition, but make things better in the future.
Many of our streams are a sorry sight. Nothing lives in them. I happen to be fortunate in coming from a part of the world where some of the rivers in which I am interested are, to some extent, still alive. The Severn is partially polluted, as are most of the other big rivers in the West County. The Wye is partially polluted, but other streams are practically free. They all present very different problems. This Bill will be entirely dependent on subsequent legislation for its usefulness. The Minister said that he hoped this Government, or another Government, would not hesitate to proceed with legislation affecting pollution. In another place, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture gave an assurance that such legislation would follow this Measure at a fairly early date, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in this House, when he winds up the Debate, will confirm that statement.
In considering the position of river boards, there are many conflicting interests. Those interests will naturally look upon the action of the board from their own point of view. I feel that everybody is, at heart, interested in the general well-being of our rivers, on which


the health and happiness of the people who live on their banks depend. At present, pollution is the great menace. It must be stopped and, not only that, we hope that the present position will eventually be improved. It is, however, an extremely difficult problem, and the cost of curing pollution is monumental. This, in a way, affects representation on river boards.
The borough of Bridgnorth, in my constituency, pollutes the River Severn. This small town has some 6,000 inhabitants, and most of its sewage goes in crude form into the river. This is a very bad thing, particularly as Bridgnorth is a town which is visited by people from the Black Country, who camp below the town in great numbers on the river bank, as they do further down at Bewdley, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) knows. People bathe and swim in the river, little realising that it is the main sewer of the town of Bridgnorth. Fortunately, it is a river of considerable volume, which mitigates the evil.
From Bridgnorth's point of view, it is interesting to see what may be their attitude to the river board. To purify their sewerage system would involve an expenditure of £150,000, which would mean an increased rate of 3s. or 4s. in the pound. A good many ratepayers' representatives, confronted with that problem, would be prepared to say, "Let us spend £150,000: it is a good thing," but the average ratepayer would be inclined to say, "We have put our sewage into the river for a long time. It does not matter to us; it flows downstream and is gone, so we shall not vote for an increase in the rates of 3s. or 4s."
That emphasises the point that the composition of the river boards must be broadminded if it is to give unbiased attention to the problem of pollution. That same problem recurs all the way down the river, and is at its worst at Gloucester. The pollution of the Severn at Gloucester considerably affects the fishery interest in the river. The Severn was once a fruitful source of salmon, most of which were caught in nets below Gloucester. Only a few fell to rod and line higher up the river. The effluent from Gloucester has become a great menace, and the river is considerably polluted, with the result that the yield of salmon is falling off rapidly. It was con-

sidered possible, before the war, to free the source of the River Tyne by an expensive anti-pollution scheme for Newcastle. The cost of this work would have been about £7 million. That, again, shows what a colossal problem this is.
It is not only the salmon interests that are affected from the fisherman's point of view. On the River Severn great numbers of coarse fishermen come in many busloads every week-end, and I have frequently seen half-a-dozen buses lined up in one place for angling competitions. The problem of estuary pollution is not covered by any legislation at present existing. It is quite the most important problem of pollution so far as salmon fishing is concerned. Once the estuary is polluted, no salmon parr can get to the sea. They have to wait for some time in tidal water before changing from fresh water to salt, and they are invariably killed in the process. I hope that when pollution is considered in the future, estuary pollution will be given careful attention.
Another problem is water conservation. The Minister mentioned a Central Advisory Water Committee and two sub-committees which are to be set up to deal with river pollution and land drainage. I am sorry that he did not say that another sub-committee would be set up to deal with water conservation. In my opinion it will be one of the most important factors to be considered in the future. Clause 9 makes some provision for water conservation, but when we have a more modern world there will be a tremendous increase in the consumption of water. There has been a tremendous increase during the past 50 years. As every house becomes equipped with a bath and running water, consumption doubles and trebles in no time. As water is laid on to farms, more water is used, because the tendency is to give up using dirty little ponds from which the cattle drink and to fence them off in order to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. I do not suppose that there will be any great increase in the amount of water used for drinking. It is a dangerous practice as it rusts one's inside.
Another purpose which will increase the use of water, and which will be a considerable problem in future years, is


irrigation. I have lately examined an irrigation plant in the Vale of Evesham. A simple plant of minimum size, with a piece of pipe about 200 yards long, will irrigate one acre. It is a common sight in the Evesham district. Many farmers have two or three sets of pipes, and the consumption of water equivalent to one inch of rain on one acre of land is 12,000 gallons a day. That amount of irrigation can be done in 10 hours. The majority of farmers irrigate two acres in a day, which uses 24,000 gallons of water. It is not difficult to imagine that at least Loco of these plants will soon be in use, and some two million gallons will then be required. This, again, is a matter which should receive careful attention. By increasing the use of water for irrigation, we can increase the acreage output to a tremendous extent. Yields will rise by 50 per cent. or more, provided that crops, particularly brassicas and roots, are frequently watered.
We seem to suffer from alternations of floods and droughts. In the town of Bridgnorth we have in the last few years had to raise flood relief funds. I hope that when the river boards are set up, attention will be given to increasing the number of large-scale reservoirs to catch the rainfall in the head waters of the rivers such as we have in the Elan Valley and at Vyrnwy. If sufficient reservoirs were built—I realise their very great cost—we should be able to prevent floods, and also be able to make available water supplies in summer when the rivers are at present a mere tepid trickle.
I wish that a board had been set up to consider water consumption which, I am certain, will be a very great problem during the next 25 years. Once a great deal of water is taken from the head-stream of a river in the summer, and from down its course, the level of flow is decreased, and the danger of pollution is correspondingly increased. Any poison in the stream becomes more effective. We learned that in the Wye last year, when the sewage put into the river at Hereford, while the water was very low, resulted in 300 fish being taken dead from the river at the height of the summer. That may be partly due to the amount of water taken off above Rhayader in the Elan Valley.
I would like the Minister to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Perrins). He asked that the Minister should say whether representation would be given on the river board concerned with the Wye in the Elan Valley to people who came from Birmingham. The Elan Valley supplies water for Birmingham. There is no probability that the councils affected at Birmingham will have anything to do with the Wye river area. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether they have, or will have, any representation on the Wye river board.
When we come to discuss in Committee the actual representation of the boards, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that it is not necessarily the people who pay the piper who are affected to a large extent. The people who live in the town through which a river flows probably pollute the river, but it is of no particular interest to them to purify the river. The people who suffer are those in the next town downstream, or the people who draw their water to farms and dwelling houses between the towns, or those who fish in the rivers. The river boards must consist of broadminded people who are concerned with keeping a good level of clean water in the rivers available to everybody throughout their course. I hope that the Minister will make arrangements to see that the boards are so composed.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I believe that everybody will welcome the Bill and that the interests concerned with the maintenance of our rivers and the prevention of flooding and pollution will recognise it as a first step in remedying a state of affairs in the upkeep of our watercourses that has become gradually worse. I would repeat a question which was put to the Minister from the other side of the House by an hon. Member who supported the Bill. He asked the Minister what was the position of the navigation authorities and wanted a definite reply. I wonder whether a satisfactory reply can be given, under the terms of the Bill.
The most important interests concerned with river upkeep are the navigation authorities, but they have been left out of substantial representation upon the


river boards. Those authorities have been working for years against a number of obstacles and one would have thought that they would be the first to be considered in relation to the Bill. I cannot imagine anyone being completely satisfied with any answer that the Minister can give under the present terms of the Bill. I suggest that he should carefully consider trying to strengthen the representation of navigation authorities upon the river boards.
We can be more happy in our commendations of the Bill when we turn to questions of flooding and pollution. Everybody who has lived in a large river valley will know that the prevention of flooding and pollution has been impossible for some time. The Bill will enable people living in valleys to be made more secure against continuing flooding. We hope that pollution will be seriously tackled. The chief cause of pollution has been the rather unsavoury behaviour of industries and trades, which have been most carelessly permitted to pollute our river system. Industrial pollution is the chief culprit. We hope that the Bill will make it possible, in connection with other Bills like the Drainage Bill, to prevent such careless and harmful pollution. A number of rivers have been mentioned, but a true description of most of them today would be "open sewers."
We hope for a lot from the Bill but many people will wonder whether the Minister is trying to promote the full use of our rivers for navigation. After a number of years of reactionary and harmful legislation, we have reached a moment in our history when inland navigation can proceed as it was destined to do, especially with the aid of modern mechanics. It can be built up into an effective transport system under the responsibility of the British Transport Commission. We are, however, seriously concerned about the navigation position and the apparently accidental and arbitrary representation upon the boards. We wonder if the Minister will find it possible to make that representation stronger, so that the interests concerned can be fully and effectively dealt with.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I agree with what the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) said about navigation. It might interest the

House to know that only 100 years ago my constituency took some part in the export trade. Goods used to be sent from Huntingdon 50 miles up the Ouse to the sea and to any port in Europe. Now the river is so silted up and full of weeds and reeds that it is not possible in some places even to row a rowing boat or paddle a canoe in the river in comfort. One realises the contribution that could be made to the export trade if freight charges could be reduced by goods being taken straight from the factory to the foreign port of delivery. One should bear in mind the position of great manufacturing towns like Peterborough, which is already making a great contribution to the export trade. I feel sure that, without very much trouble, much less trouble than the clearing of the Ouse from Huntingdon would involve, ships of fair size could deliver goods straight from, or from very close to, the factories in Peterborough to foreign ports. My claim to the attention of the House is based on the fact that the river Great Ouse flows through my constituency for 20 miles, and the river Nene forms its northern boundary for about 10 miles. Both those rivers flooded a very considerable agricultural area last year, as the Minister well knows.
The first point in the Bill which arouses my curiosity is that there is a sort of dual ministerial control. We find that the Ministers of Agriculture and Health are to perform a Siamese-twin act in the administration of the Bill. At a later stage, in connection with navigation, we find that the Minister of Transport lollops into the picture. I am all in favour of co-ordination, liaison and planning, but we need to know as a House of Commons exactly where the real responsibility will lie. We want to know to which Minister we are to write. Do we write to either or to both? If we write to both, will it take twice as long to get an answer as it would to get an answer from one? To whom should we put our Parliamentary Questions? That very wise angler Izaak Walton used to say:
that that which is everybody's business is nobody's business.
We must know whose business it is really going to be. I suppose we may get some indication from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary seem to be attending upon the House in this Debate to a greater extent


than the representatives of any other Department. But it is perfectly clear that, in the Bill, the three Ministers are jointly concerned. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 23, they will find a rather extraordinary state of affairs. It reads as follows:
The Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport may cause an inquiry to be held in any case where it appears to them or him to be advisable to do so in connection with any matter arising under this Act or otherwise in connection with any functions of river boards.…
I can see a pretty administrative muddle arising from that state of affairs. It is a matter which, I suggest, should receive deep consideration.
With regard to representation, while, generally speaking, I welcomed the Minister's speech, apart from his later comments, I thought that his approach to the question of representation was a little unrealistic. He said—and we naturally agree with him—that he hoped there would be no factions on these boards. He then asked us not to think in terms of voting power. But can one really think of any representative democratic body other than in terms of voting power? Is not the vote the right hand of democracy? When the members of these boards come to vote, how will they vote? The county council members will, obviously, vote with due regard to the fact that they have been delegated by their county councils. The people appointed by the Minister—and, incidentally, they are not really representatives—they are appointees of the Minister on his view as to how they will best represent drainage or angling interests—they will presumably vote in such a way as neither to displease the Minister nor to fail to pay due regard to the interests they are there to represent. They will be in a slightly peculiar position.
We cannot exclude the fact that the voting power will be the ultimate determining factor. I personally think that the county councils, even with a 50 per cent. representation, are still over-represented. I greatly regret that the Minister is unable to accept the collective wisdom of their Lordships, and that he intends to undo what they have done. I am advised that, in some cases, the county councils may be doubly represented, because there are a few cases in this country where county

councils are their own drainage authorities. Therefore, if the Minister should, by any chance, appoint further county council members as representing drainage interests from those authorities, there would be a double county council representation. That, of course, should be avoided.
As I shall attempt to show, it seems to me that the members of the county councils may very well have a conflict of interests or duties when attempting to exercise their votes on the river boards. So far as the appointment of the drainage people is concerned, I should be grateful for clarification as to the extent to which the internal drainage boards will be represented. It is rather vague at the moment. We should bear in mind that the internal drainage boards, which are to remain part of the scheme, are, at present, heavy contributors to the general income of the catchment boards. They will become contributors to the income of the river boards. Besides making those general contributions, many of them are over-burdened with heavy debts, due to special works done by the catchment boards for which the internal drainage boards are being made to pay.
I know of one small internal drainage board, of only 1,300 acres, which has already been charged with a debt of £6,000. It will be realised that 1,300 acres of rather poor meadow land just cannot make a very great contribution to agriculture when it has a debt of that kind hanging round its neck. However, it has to be borne in mind that, if agricultural areas of that kind must be made to pay these heavy charges, they will probably be more willing to do so—and we should feel more justified in making them do so—if they were properly represented on these river boards. But this, perhaps, is a matter which has not yet received, taking the country as a whole, the close attention it will have to receive. Consideration as to how appointments are to he made, and what the proportion of drainage representation should be, are matters which should be very seriously borne in mind.
In my constituency, as in those of several other hon. Members, we are fortunate in having good fishing water which gives pleasure to thousands of anglers every year. At the moment, however,


the anglers are not happy about the question of the representation of their interests. Angling these days is, after all, not only a happy and agreeable sport, but a very democratic one. I feel that we should do everything we can to protect the angler's interests. Clause (2, c, ii) is exceedingly vague, in that the Minister is not instructed to choose the angling representatives in any particular way. It is just "as it appears" to him. We wish to know how he is going to appoint these people, and who they are likely to be. I have a suggestion to make to the Minister which I hope will appeal to him. It is that the angling society representatives on present fishery boards would be very suitable as some of the first people to be appointed to the proposed river boards. If that were done, it would, to some extent, allay the fears which anglers have about this matter.
With regard to pollution, it seems to me that we are rather going backward in time as a result of this Bill. One of its effects will be to reduce the power to prosecute for pollution, a power which already exists under the 1923 Act. That reduction of power arises in this way. Under that Act, the fishery boards have power to prosecute on their own initiative, and without consulting anyone. When this Bill becomes law, the fishery boards are to be replaced, and will disappear. When they disappear, their power to prosecute on their own initiative will disappear as well. In substitution for that, we find that the river boards may prosecute after consultation with the Minister. But is not that introducing an unnecessary element of delay, and also a very great danger?
The county council members of the fishery boards may decide that, if the county council is the body which ought to be prosecuted, such a prosecution would not be appropriate. There is always that possibility. The county council or county borough may fear that, as a result of such prosecution, a large charge will be laid by the court upon the ratepayers, and they may do everything they can to fight against it. A very simple solution to this difficulty is available to the Minister if he cares to accept it. It is that the fishery committees, envisaged under the Bill as committees of the river boards, should have power to prosecute on behalf of the river boards,

and as agents of those boards on their own initiative and without consulting Whitehall. That would reduce the delay and would ensure that when he decision to prosecute has to be made, it is made by the people most affected.
With regard to the funds of the fishery boards which are being taken over by the river boards, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that these have been contributed voluntarily by fishermen all over the country for protecting their own interests and keeping the rivers clean. Those funds are now, generally speaking, very substantially in credit and constitute a nice nest-egg. They should continue to be used for the same purpose of protecting fishing interests, and should not be used for drainage, building new offices, improving amenities generally, navigation or any other purpose. They should be entirely at the disposal of the fishery committees of the river boards.
I want to say a further word about pollution and to appeal to the Government, as one of the largest undertakers now that we have so much nationalisation. Among the worst offenders in a matter of pollution are bodies who are now nationalised or are going to be nationalised. Gas works, sometimes coalmines, sometimes railways and sometimes large motor transport depots, besides the large local authorities, have been great offenders. If the Government really have a plan, they should be able to take a strong line with these nationalised bodies.
I should like to have some indication when this Debate is wound up whether or not the Government really have in mind and already working—so far as the coalmines are concerned, one would expect it to be already in operation—some means of keeping frustrated in the matter of pollution these worst offenders among Government bodies. The rivers of this country can make a great contribution to our economic well-being by attracting tourists, by their improved navigation and by attracting fishermen. Let us hope that the soft, cool, clear pools and rivers in some of our better known beauty spots will be able to earn some of those lovely hard currencies which we need so badly if we are to survive.

5.33 p.m.

Mrs. Wills: I want to refer to the representation on water undertakings, particularly with


reference to the River Wye. The local authorities are to be represented on those boards, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he will make the number three-fifths instead of one-half. That will cover those local authorities whose land and hereditaments hinge on the watershed of the river. Birmingham is not the only city which draws its water supply from a long distance away. The only way in which we shall get real understanding is to have all the interests of the river represented on the river boards because they will then be working together and will see each other's point of view, and that will help to prevent the misunderstandings which are so common when interests are distant from each other.
The position of the consumer must also be considered. The consumer of water is the person to whom it means life. It is a very vital interest. This is one of the cases in which the Minister might appoint consumer interests. Surely, the person who depends upon pure water to drink is just as interested in the preservation of the river's purity as the fisherman who fishes very often not for consumption but for pleasure and whose catch often falls by the wayside but is magnified to an enormous size by the time he arrives home. I would impress on the Minister the necessity to provide for consumer interests in this respect.
Amenities have been mentioned. The water sports which take place on many of our rivers, particularly in the lower reaches, should also be considered because they provide a healthy pastime for holidaymakers at the resorts which are coming more and more within the reach of people in the larger towns. I am sure that nobody grudges the use of water for that purpose. We want our rivers to be beautiful places, we want our water to be pure and we want the amenities of the countryside to be preserved. The people who want to make beautiful places of our rivers should be represented on the river boards.
I commend the Minister on Clause 9 and would like to say how much I welcome these provisions. They will be of advantage to all. However, I wonder whether the Minister would explain a little more fully the meaning of Subsections (8) and (9) as to directing the quantity of water which may be withdrawn from a

river because that will be important to all those areas which draw their water for drinking and other purposes from the rivers.
As to Clause 15, does the Minister consider that the powers of sampling effluents are wide enough? It is all very well to start sampling water for pollution lower down the river, but water ought to be sampled right from the source of the pollution. Some such power ought, therefore, to be given to internal drainage boards which get waste, particularly industrial waste, into the sewers. I hope the committee which is reporting on this question will suggest ways in which power can be given to those internal drainage boards to take samples and to compel industries to notify the drainage authorities when they are putting into the sewers waste which will paralyse the bacteria beds, as very often happens, so that for days they are out of use and it is impossible to prevent pollution.
I, therefore, ask the Minister if he will have another look at the powers relating to notification of pollution and to the taking of samples in order to see whether we can get to the source of the trouble. We shall need these powers, whether in this Bill or in some future Bill, before much can be done about industrial waste. As has been said, gas works have been great providers of pollution, and so have chemical works, and the more we have, through chemical processes, ersatz this, that, or the other, the more pollution we shall have of our sewers and rivers. Therefore I ask the Minister whether some general power could not be inserted into the Bill, instead of every small drainage board and authority having to come before Parliament to get these overall powers. Such a general power in the Bill would help greatly. I commend the Bill, so far as it goes, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make some slight addition to its powers to help to provide us with the pure, clean and beautiful rivers which we all hope to enjoy.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I trust the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) will forgive me if I do not follow the argument she has been adducing, not because it was not interesting, and not because I am not honoured in following her, but because I have some specific points I wish to put before the Minister. I think


we all welcome this Bill and, equally, all of us hope that it is but a "useful preliminary and nothing more," as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) mentioned when he opened for the Opposition. We all realise the great part our rivers play in the life of our nation and that pollution affects not only the million or perhaps two million anglers—for we do not know the exact number—who enjoy themselves on our rivers; it affects also the health of our people, and nothing could be more important than that. A river is a great living organism composed of animal and vegetable life and, if pollution occurs, the oxygen disappears and the water becomes dead. So it is with living water that we are dealing.
In opening the Debate the Minister mentioned that this is a Bill of compromise, and that many and varied interests have played a part in it. All of us who have listened to this Debate would not disagree with him on that. Here I wish to put a point to the Minister in order to reinforce the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond with regard to the fishery interests. The numbers representing fisheries likely to take part in these boards will be small, and instead of the Bill saying that the river boards may set up a committee representing fisheries and fishing, I would like it to say that the river boards must do so, thereby seeing to it that the fishery interests can make themselves heard.
When one studies the Bill, it appears that the Minister has been subjected from time to time to urban influences which have brought pressure to bear upon him on certain matters. No hon. Member would wish at any time lightly to dismiss the question of river pollution. The Minister will know that under the 1876 Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, if anyone wished to prosecute with regard to pollution, they must first obtain his permission and, even when it was granted, a local inquiry had to be set up. The machinery is most complicated, and if one takes into account that in the nine years before the war, out of 28 applications made only 14 were granted—

Mr. T. Williams: Would the hon. Member complete that sentence? He said that out of 28 applications, only 14 were

granted, but will he also tell the House that only one was refused?

Mr. Marshall: That may be true, but my point was that the machinery is complicated and I do not believe he will deny that.

Mr. Williams: indicated assent.

Mr. Marshall: If by any chance Parliament can at any time make something less complicated, surely that is something Parliament would want to do? I would like to see it altered, first, so that when anyone puts up an application for prosecution, the Minister will treat it in a liberal way and secondly, that there should not first be a local inquiry. I would like an answer on that point from the Minister.
Two or three hon. Members have referred to navigation. In the time of Charles I, a Bill for making the rivers of Cornwall navigable was passed through this House with great acclamation. It reached another place but, four days later the Civil War broke out and it never became an Act. We come back to this point now. The shipping interests are very nervous of this point. They do not feel that they will be informed of where their interests are involved, and trust that the navigation authorities will play their part. Would it be possible, when these boards are considering matters of navigation, that they should first consult bodies representative of shipping and navigation, such as the British Chamber of Shipping? Then there is a point more suitable perhaps for the Committee stage than for Second Reading, but because Bills have a habit of going upstairs, some of us do not get a second opportunity. Clause 15 (1) says:
A river board shall have a right to obtain and take away samples of any effluent which is passing from any land or vessel into any river, stream, watercourse or inland water in the river board area.
I cannot see how anyone who is inspecting this matter will, under this Bill, be able to board a vessel. Some form of provision should be made, perhaps on the next page, whereby the captain of the vessel has to be contacted and a right given for the man to board the vessel.
Now I wish to show how this Bill affects the great Cornish rivers in my contituency. You know the great


rivers of Cornwall, Sir, the Fal, Foyey, Lynher, Tidi, Seaton, Camel, and the "Great" Tamar. For the benefit and interest of hon. Members opposite I will say that the Camel has nothing to do with the animal called a camel, but it happens to be a Cornish word which means crooked, and it is aptly termed, as the river winds around. The Black Prince, ordered 200 salted salmon from the Tamar to be sent over to Bordeaux and in the 18th century at St. Dominick, provision had to be made that people should not eat salmon more than twice a week. I can remember when we had oyster beds in the Lynher at St. Germains. But all that has gone owing to pollution.
I wish to make it clear to the Minister that the Tamar, is in fact, a Cornish river. King Athelstan, the Saxon, declared in 938 that the boundary of Cornwall was the Tamar, and the great historian William Borlase stated in 1758 that this river is reckoned to be in Cornwall.

Mr. Chetwynd: The hon. Member spoke some time ago about the Civil War stopping legislation for Cornwall. Can he say whether that war has ended yet?

Mr. Marshall: I do not quite know the purpose of that interruption.

Mrs. Leah Manning: We do.

Mr. Marshall: I trust that I am not out of Order in replying that Cornwall has never forgotten the number of dead she had in the Civil War.
In regard to the Milne Report and the pollution of the rivers in Cornwall, mention has already been made of this map, which I hold in my hand and which is left completely blank as far as Cornwall is concerned. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will look into the matter and take all these relevant points into consideration. I sincerely trust that he will add one more board which will look after the Cornish rivers, and give me his assurance of that fact tonight.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I wish to refer to the cost to local authorities and probably to the local authority of which I am a representative here. I happen to be chairman of the Rimrose Brook Drainage Board, which is nearly

the largest scheme of this kind in the country. It is to cost £750,000 and only half the scheme is being done at present. The cost is being shared between five authorities. Bootle, which I represent on that board, is responsible for 45 per cent., or 47 per cent., of the cost. This is a drainage scheme which is long overdue, and for 20 years or more we have been trying to get it through, but we were only able to start at the end of the war.
The scheme will do something which hon. Members have been advocating, that is, enable the abatement of flooding in that area, and will assist drainage of that area. This authority has already been impoverished because of the blitz, but will be called upon, like the others, to pay its share of the cost, which is approximately £350,000. They will possibly be called upon to pay the product of another 4d. rate, which is rather less than £8,000 a year. Liverpool, one of the constituencies of which I represent in the House, may have to pay more than £100,000. I am concerned about many of the complications which enter into this matter in connection with Liverpool, and the effect that it will have on navigation. It is intended that representatives of navigation will come within the ambit of the river boards authority.
As chairman of the drainage board, I had occasion, before the war, to make representation to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to get permission to take our outfall sewer through the docks. I mention that because of what has been said about pollution of the rivers. I dare say many hon. Members know that practically all the sewage, solids included, is deposited into the Mersey without being treated, and that indicates the great problems we have to face. In 1936 or 1937 I was negotiating with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on this matter, and for two years they had held up an agreement we sought for the new outfall of the drainage scheme, which drains four or five square miles to the North of Liverpool, just outside the Liverpool area. It was held up because, as the authority concerned, they had referred it to the Government, and the Scientific and Research Committee were dealing with the question of whether the deposit of sewage into the Mersey by all the authorities, Liverpool, Bootle and the rest, was causing the silting up of the channels of the river.
Although eventually the Committee decided that the sewage deposits were not responsible, and we got agreement and were able in that sewerage scheme to cut out what would have cost at that period considerably less than if we were doing the work now, the treatment plant for that scheme cost about £45,000 or £50,000. I think it is responsible for some of the silting which takes place in the channels of the river.
The river boards are to become responsible in some measure for navigation, which is tied up with the question of keeping the river open for shipping. That must cost the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board many hundreds of thousands of pounds, because they have a fleet of dredgers continuously at work to keep the traffic flowing on the river. Is that to be taken over by the river board? What is to happen? Here is the anomaly as I see it. The responsible authority in Liverpool, from which sanction has to be obtained to drain the river, is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, who are the owners of the foreshore all round the docks on both sides of the river. An attempt to take over the responsibility for navigation would involve the taking over of responsibility for keeping clear the channels of the river. It would involve the question of keeping that tidal river open to ocean-going traffic, which is something that could not be done with the product of a 4d. rate. In spite of the fact that Liverpool would contribute to the extent of well over £100,000, that would not be anything like enough for that task. I would like to know from the Minister how far this Bill goes, and what is the intention about the inclusion of the navigational aspect of rivers. That will certainly not be met by a 4d. rate from the different authorities, on and around the Mersey.
The time has arrived for the Government to tackle this question of deposits in rivers. Although the drainage board of which I have been, and continue to be, the chairman escape an expenditure of about 50,000 because we were not called upon to treat the sewage before its discharge into the river, it is a serious matter that so little sewage is treated in this country. One can easily understand how difficult it is to get small local authorities to deal with the matter when Governments in the past did not force the authorities such as Liverpool, Bootle and

others, which have a high rateable value, and which could have faced up to the problem, to do so, when they even allowed us to "get away with it" in spite of the fact that we have not treated sewage in any way. I hope that the Minister will look at that point, and let us know exactly how far navigation will be embraced, and, if it is taken over, whether the responsibility is also taken over for what relates to navigation in a river like the Mersey, which is not the only river that this question affects. Will the present port authority be relieved from the responsibilities involved, and, if so, from what source is the money coming to provide for that service?

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: Some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) certainly merit a reply, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to deal with those matters when he winds up the Debate. My purpose in intervening is twofold. I am anxious to make certain proposals, firstly, to seek to improve the position under the Bill of fishery interests generally, and secondly, of the fishing industry in particular. To deal with the question of general fishing interests, I would, as previous speakers have done, take as my first point the question of representation. In opening this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out how the constitution of the new boards will be provided for under Clause 2. Having done that, it must be apparent that those who are to represent the fishery interests must necessarily be few in number. We hope to see that those interests are best represented, by those who have knowledge and experience, who will assist the river boards in this direction.
Statutory bodies were set up to administer the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1923. I refer to the fishery boards. In the membership of those boards great local knowledge and wide experience are represented. It would be quite wrong if that special knowledge and experience were lost. I do not for a moment suggest that that is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. For the retention of that valuable knowledge and experience, I propose first that the fishery interests might be enabled to put up a scheme to the Minister of Agriculture whereby fishery associations may be


formed in the various areas with the right of nominating to the Minister those who shall represent those interests on the new boards. In another place the Minister had an Amendment made which entitled certain consultations to take place, but I hope he will consider my specific proposal. My second suggestion is that the river boards, when constituted, should be enabled and entitled to consult the various associations to be set up under the scheme. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman or his officers have received a deputation from the National Association of Fishery Boards, and I do not doubt that he will give careful consideration to those two points.
The other point which I desire to deal with, namely, the interests of the fishing industry, has not been mentioned frequently during this Debate. If fishery interests generally are limited in their representation on the boards, it is plain that this section of fishery interests—the industry—is even more meagrely represented on the boards. First, I would request that those who earn their livelihood by fishing under licences granted by the existing fishery boards shall be enabled to have their voices heard on the new river boards that are to be set up. I believe it is right to say that these fishermen rely for their means of livelihood upon their fishing on some 30 of our rivers. Their numbers are not great, but they are quite sufficient to warrant proper representation.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the hon. and learned Member now talking about the net-fishing interests only, or has he in mind other bodies of fishermen? He seems to be pleading for representation for a very small number of men indeed.

Mr. Nield: In order that there may be no doubt, I would say that the number approximates to about 2,500. It is a small number, but the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) would, I am sure, be the last to suggest that their voice should not be heard among the voices of the other industrial fishing interests.
Several of my hon. Friends have given historical surveys of the rivers in their Divisions. I think the Dee can go back in its history of fishing for salmon as far as any other river. The industry was

exploited, we are told, during the three and a half centuries of the Roman occupation of the City of Chester. The salmon trap within my own constituency was mentioned in one of the earliest charters, in 1093. My particular concern is for the successors of the fishers of those days who are still in the area. In the Handbridge area of Chester, there is a community whose families for generations have fished for salmon, and earned their livelihood in that way. In recent times they have met with two particular difficulties, and this follows to some extent upon what has been said by others in this discussion. Their difficulties are the finding of obstructions in the stream and, most important from their point of view, the washing away of a certain length of the bank within, the confines of the City of Chester. When that arose, no person or authority would accept the responsibility for the repair of this bank from which these fishermen fished.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall that I wrote to him about the matter on more than one occasion, and he had to admit that his Department was powerless. So this state of affairs continues. The question, therefore, that I would seek to put is that, with regard to both these difficulties, will the new river boards be in a position to put these matters right? I have put it from a local angle, and I make no apology for that, but I am sure that the problems are of a much wider application. Let us have, therefore, proper representation and a further explanation of the functions of the new boards. In any event, I much trust that the Minister will give consideration to the points to which I have called attention.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: The Debate, so far in its course, has reminded me of one of those more pleasant, gracious and placid of our English rivers, which has gone steadily on from its source to the sea with an occasional ripple here and there, but, in the main, has not been polluted with any kind of controversy on Party lines. I welcome this Bill, first of all, as a Measure of administrative reform and simplification. Although it adds no new powers to deal with pollution and all the other points which have been raised, it should enable the various boards set up to take more vigorous action against these evils.
The Bill deals with land drainage, fisheries—both from the point of view of recreation and food—with pollution and the conservation of water. The most important factor seems to be that it enables for the first time all the different bodies concerned with these functions to be coordinated into a reasonable whole. It fulfils the main provisions in the report of the Milne Committee which stated that:
The principle defects of the existing system is the fact that no single body is charged with co-ordinating the various river interests or with the duty of ensuring that the requirements of all such interests are fully weighed when questions affecting the river are under review, with the result that the river is not used to the best advantage of all the interests concerned.
I hope, as a result of this legislation, that all the interests of all the rivers in this country will be used to the full, and that no sectional approach will be allowed to stand in the way.
May I be allowed to give one example? I will take the River Tees, because it divides my constituency into two parts and it is the one river that I know best in the country. At the present moment there are 22 authorities, ranging from two county councils down to rural district councils, who are responsible for the question of pollution. There is little wonder that practically nothing has been done to prevent the pollution of this river. The main question agitating hon. Members in this House is the question of river pollution, which, as has been rightly pointed out, is gradually getting worse. In a few years' time, unless something is done, there will probably be very few fish alive in any of our rivers. If it is to deal with this growing menace the board must be a very powerful body.
I will again take as an example the River Tees, not because it is the finest river in the country—that goes without saying. It is one of the most beautiful in its upper reaches. It has been written about by our poets and dramatists, and it needs little praise from me to point its beauty to Members of this House. Regarding the question of salmon, it was, not so many years ago, one of the finest salmon and trout fishing rivers in the country. Its annual net catch ran into over 2,000 or 3,000 fish. Its pure, unpolluted water would have provided drinking water for all those great aggregations of people at its mouth, without the necessity of carrying it by pipes over

many miles, as is done at the moment. Today, owing to the pollution in its lower reaches, the spawning fish entering the river find it almost impossible to get through. Even if one or two do manage it, the smolts, coming down the river, cannot get by. Consequently, while in 1926 the average salmon catch was 3,000, today it is nil. I am reminded of the miller, near Thornaby, who committed some misdemeanour many hundreds of years ago. He was ordered to stay in prison until he presented two salmon to the lord of the manor. If he were so confined today he could regard it as a life sentence.
The cause of this pollution seems to be something which must be tackled on national lines. In my own area the cause, in the main, is that the large towns of Middlesbrough, Stockton and Thornaby pour all their untreated sewage into the stream. One estimate is that as much as 12 million gallons of crude sewage enter the estuary of this river every 24 hours, and 13,000 tons of solid sewage enter the river in the course of a year. We are confronted with that in the report of the Tees Conservancy Commissioners made in 1944, which states:
Mention might be made of the heavy concentration of solid sewage, or sludge, in the river. When these are disturbed by dredging operations the stench is so pronounced that crews of dredging craft have had, on occasions, to be issued with protective masks
That is an appalling situation in which to find any river in the 20th century, especially when all the remedies for pollution are known, and may be put into effect, providing the will and finance is there to do it.
It is a tremendous problem which faces the new river boards. In my view it is a problem which no single local authority can tackle. It would be impossible in my own constituency to bear the expense of putting filters on to their present sewage system. The only final cure will be that the cost of these measures should be borne by the National Exchequer.
The question of representation will probably cause more controversy than anything else. I think it is the only departure which the Minister has made in this Bill from the recommendations contained in the Milne Committee Report. They agree that, in the main, there should be direct representation of all the interests likely to be affected by the work of the


river boards, whether contributing directly or indirectly to the expense incurred.
I know that a very strong case can be made that there should be no representation without taxation or equivalent contribution, but in my view a mistake has been made in departing too widely from the Milne Committee proposals. I would like to give reasons why I consider that it is necessary that all the interests in the river should be safeguarded. I will take two examples. First, there is the question of joint water boards. Here there is a clear case for direct representation of the various main water boards on the river boards. I take the example of the Tees Water Board which is the largest supplier of water in that area. It has been more concerned than any other body with the conservation and purity of the water resources of the Tees. Yet we find in the same river that one county borough, which has its own water undertaking, will have direct representation, and this water board, which represents one county borough and two non-county boroughs, will have to rely upon the good will of its constituent bodies for representation from their quota.
It may work out in practice that the right people will be appointed to the board, but there is no guarantee of that, and I wish that the Minister would give further consideration to the matter. I know that he considers that it is impracticable for the board to be made too large and unwieldy and for all the separate interests to have direct representation on the board. Clearly, he acts on the principle that those who contribute should have representation. He has, however, made two significant departures from this rule. We know that in Clause 2 (8) there is provision for the appointment of a member of the National Coal Board in addition to the 40 in two areas. I do not dispute that. I see no reason why the representatives of the National Coal Board should not be on the board where there interests are vitally concerned, but I cannot see why the Minister cannot apply the same principle to other interests which also have a vital concern.
While the local authorities are given the main representation—and I do not dispute that—that is not the only factor to be taken into account. There are many other interests. I will discuss the case of the anglers which has already been

advanced with great skill. I personally am interested in safeguarding the rights which they now enjoy. I have spent many hours sitting beside a stream catching nothing, but able to think, and that, probably, is a very useful operation these days. It appears to me that at the moment they make a valuable contribution by way of fees for licences. They have representation by Act of Parliament on the fishery boards at the moment, but they are to be deprived of direct representation under the Bill. It may be that they will find some representation as representing fishery interests, but at the moment we do not know for certain. It has been said repeatedly that these million anglers up and down the country, organised in their local associations, are the best people that the Minister could have for preserving and conserving the state of our rivers. I wish that he could give them some guarantee that in the future, after he has first appointed their representatives to the boards, they will find some channel for making their wishes known to him.
My final point is on the value of research to which this Bill should give effect. The Milne Report stresses the value of research in the improvement of our rivers. I agree with it that:
With the co-ordination of the various functions in the hands of comprehensive river boards with comprehensive functions and the consequent pooling of the financial resources of large areas, it should be possible to obtain the benefit of the full-time services of scientific and technical staffs.
At present they cannot afford to employ them. Over and above that, I hope that the Water Pollution Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will be called upon to play a much larger part in seeking out the causes of pollution and bringing in remedies, in that way helping to bring our streams back to their former greatness and glory. I agree with the Minister. I do not think that when his boards are constituted they will be acting as representatives of the various sections from which they come. At least, I hope that that will not be the case. Nothing could be worse than to have a kind of dog fight between the various interests represented on the boards. I hope that, with his advisers, he will be able to choose the right kind of persons, with experience and knowledge of the industries and interests


represented, and that once they are appointed they will be able to get to work as a combined unit for the good of the rivers. I hope that the English rivers, of which we ought to be so proud, will soon again be worthy of our pride.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: I hope I may be allowed to say how much I agree with the bulk of what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and respectfully to congratulate him on his contribution to the Debate. It may interest him to know that I am a member of a society which has issued a rather interesting little booklet dealing with the Tees. He may find some interesting details in that publication.

Mr. Chetwynd: I made full use of that, and I would like to acknowledge the fact.

Mr. Morrison: I wish to say a few words in general approval of this Bill, though there are points of detail which must be criticised. As I do not very often find myself giving approval to Bills promoted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I like to do so when I can. There is no doubt that pollution is an important consideration from the point of view of national health and also from the point of view of fishery interests. I emphasise that fishery interests do not cover only fish. They cover the riparian owner, the nets at the bottom of the river, the angling clubs and the individual angler at the top of the river. Fishing gives untold amusement and amenity value to many people in these difficult days. The Minister said that this Bill was being introduced by the Government at a time when they were hard-pressed. I would remind the Government that the nation is hard-pressed for food, and that the bulk supply of fish was very much greater in days gone by than it is now. An improvement in the state of our rivers is essential in order to increase that supply.
Not many months ago a school of porpoises passed this House—so far as I know without stopping to look at its Members. They went as far as Teddington. That shows how our great rivers have been denuded of fish. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from time to time throw a fly or a bait across the Floor of the House. It may well be that Members of the Government would be only

too thankful if those hon. Members on this side of the House were more peaceably occupied in throwing that bait from the terrace where we have tea in the summer.
I appreciate that the Minister said, in his opening remarks, that it might very well be that, before the last river board is set up, new legislation in the shape of an amending Bill will be ready. I regret very much that there are no more immediate steps being taken in regard to the subject of pollution, but I hope that, in winding up, the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance that this will be covered at an early stage.
I want also to refer to the question of water conservation. It is a far cry from the River Tees to the bourne chalk streams of Wiltshire, but there is no doubt that, under past legislation, much has been done to help with the problem of flooding all over the country, but equal damage can be done over a period by a sustained drought, and particularly is that so on the chalk uplands of Wiltshire, where the chalk streams do not rise for seven or eight months after the rain. In my own constituency, on 12th January this year, it was possible to see farmers not very far from my own home carting water. I therefore welcome the fact that reference is made in the Bill to the need water. I, therefore, welcome the fact that will help as a first step to further progress in that direction. When one looks down on this country, from an aeroplane, one sees that it is a very small area compared with many lands, and, if we drain off all our water too quickly into the sea, when we get a long period of drought we shall inevitably suffer. The Minister of Agriculture will appreciate more than anyone how increasingly water is used in food production in agriculture, as well as for human amenities.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Richards: In common with many hon. Members I very warmly welcome the Bill. My right hon. Friend is jointly responsible, according to the Bill, with the Minister of Health for setting up these river boards in every river basin throughout the country. That is a very considerable task, and it will probably be some time before all these boards are set up. The tasks that are awaiting these boards, when they are eventually set up, are very considerable


indeed. I think we ought to realise that these boards are taking over the functions of several other boards which are operating at the present moment, and reference has already been made to the difficulties that are being experienced by these boards at present.
There are, for example, drainage boards, which have done a magnificent piece of work in the past, and their work will now devolve upon the river boards. They are also taking over the duties of various fishery boards, and we have heard a great deal during the last half-hour about the difficulties concerning polluted rivers. These boards are to be saddled with all these duties, and, in addition, it has been suggested that they should also be responsible, to some extent, at any rate, for navigation at the river's mouth. These are very formidable tasks, and, from that point of view, one rather regrets that the Minister has decided not to give extra powers to these boards in order that they may tackle wholeheartedly the various problems with which they will be faced.
We are all disappointed—and there is universal agreement here—at the fact that so very little has been done to prevent the pollution of our rivers and to make them pure, but that is an exceptionally formidable and costly task. We have to recognise that fact when considering what we expect to be done by these boards. There is some controversy as to the personnel or set-up of the boards, but I do not see very well how the Minister could have brought out a scheme very different from the one he has produced. He has placed a limit to the number of members of each board, and has suggested that it should not be more than 40, but, within that limit, he suggests that the representation of public authorities might vary from 50 per cent. to two-thirds of the membership. If we take 40 as being the average number, then, of that 40, from 20 to 26 members will represent the public authorities included within the area of the river board, and that will leave 76 or 20 representing all other interests.
I think we all recognise that the public authorities which will be represented on the river boards will have a prime say in the representation, because they are the people who are to provide the cash for the difficult work we expect them to

do. It is a very delicate question who is to get the other places left over after the public authorities have received their share of the representation. We have heard a good deal tonight about the representation of the fishing industry, and I think that what has been said was absolutely right from every point of view. These are the people who know the rivers intimately and they have in the past, through their associations, done a great deal to preserve the amenities of the rivers, to encourage the production of fish and so on, and they are very keenly interested in this matter. We are then to have representatives of the drainage boards, because the new river boards are to do the work formerly done by the drainage boards. The Minister is in a very tight corner when he tries to settle this question of representation.
There is one other point I would like to make. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that nothing is said in the Bill on the question of amenities. I think this is a question of growing importance, and it is regrettable that no provision has been made in the Bill for the representation of those societies that are vitally and fundamentally concerned with the preservation of the health and beauty of our countryside. I hope that, when we come to the Committee stage, the Minister may find it possible to give more representation, even if it is only one person, to that point of view, which has so far been left entirely outside.
I was struck by another problem which, it seems to me, is not being faced. When we are considering the control of the rivers of this country, most people naturally think of the problem of flooding. There is no mention, as far as one can see, of the possibility of very large agricultural areas and urban areas being subjected every year or so to flooding. This is a question that has been neglected by the country. I was interested to read the other day a most valuable report upon the flooding of the Severn in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. The striking thing in that report is that until this investigation was carried out, it was not realised where the cause of the flooding lay. It lay not in the source of the Severn itself, but in one of its tributaries which gives rise to very frequent and very sudden flooding. That tributary is the Vyrnwy, and the upper reaches have already been


used as a gathering ground for the Liverpool Corporation. Reference has been made in the Debate to the possibility of having reservoirs of that kind built in the higher reaches of the river in order to prevent flooding. The tragedy of the position is that such reservoirs do not prevent flooding at all. The impounding of the Vyrnwy in the upper reaches does not prevent the flooding of the Severn and the same thing is true of other water courses too.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: If there were several such reservoirs and some of them were kept empty, to be filled up only when there was heavy rainfall, it would prevent flooding. The one on the Vyrnwy does not prevent flooding because it is always kept full.

Mr. Richards: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I would point out that it does nothing at all to prevent the flooding of that valley. If we built other reservoirs, it would, as we all know, be done at an extravagant cost, and they would be utilised only during a time of flooding. I cannot conceive of any Government or any other authority building up these dry reservoirs, if I may so call them, to wait for the rains to come, and then to drain them again. I am afraid this is a pretty hopeless proposition, and the engineer for the Severn Catchment Board, who naturally knows more about it than I do, believes that what we want is a great deal more information with regard to the rainfall at certain times of the year.
What we have to recognise is that we can do very little to prevent occasional flooding. All that we can hope to do is to reserve certain areas for the river to cover when it does come up, because, as the engineer for the Severn Catchment Board puts it, these rivers have an immemorial right to flooding. We have to recognise that fact and do the best we can to confine their activities to certain territories. This is one of the most interesting and difficult questions that these new boards will have to face. I am very glad that we are to have the rivers organised, so to speak; and that there are to be boards to deal with the whole of the rivers of the country, and not with only part of them, or with only one statutory duty. It is right that these boards should be charged with the responsibility for the

whole of the misdemeanours of our many rivers.

6.45 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: I shall only detain the House for a few minutes because most of what is relevant has already been said. I want to address the House on two points—first, the importance of agricultural drainage and of our water supplies; and, secondly, the question of the representation of certain interests on the river boards. The Minister of Agriculture probably has the best job of all the Ministers in the House, and certainly the most interesting from my point of view. As he knows, I represent an agricultural constituency in which there are two rivers of some importance, though possibly not so large or so important as the River Tees which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd); these two rivers flow into the sea in a joint estuary. I could quote the number of sewers that pour their discharge undiluted into them. Everything goes in completely unpurified.
I come now to the question of representation on the river boards. Clause 2 provides for the appointment of members and no less than one half or more than two-thirds will come from the county councils and county boroughs. There is no mention of the rural district councils and the only mention of the others is that they are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries after consulting the interests of the drainage boards and fisheries. I draw attention to the words "after consultation." I should like to know from the Minister how this consultation is likely to take place. Unless some method is laid down in the Bill by which the interests of drainage and fisheries are guarded I can see that they will not be consulted. They should have some statutory recognition in the Bill as having the right to be represented on the river boards. How will the Minister carry out his consultation? Will he consult with the clerk of the river board, for instance? Probably the clerk of the river board is not interested in drainage or in fishing. He may be the last person the Minister should consult with regard to either.
The suggestion has already been put to the Minister that the fishing interests should have a panel from which names


would be chosen. This is a sounder method than the one in the Bill. Why should not the local authorities nominate people or have people vote in compiling a panel from which the Minister may choose the names of those with whom he shall consult? To my mind that is the right answer and I hope that in Committee that will be dealt with.
In opening my remarks, I said I was only going to deal with two points. However, there is one other matter to which I would refer, and that is the inevitable question of pollution. In this connection I could quote from a little book which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) helped to produce. It is a book on pollution, and it says that the Taw and the Torridge are two of the worst polluted rivers in the whole of England. This question of pollution affects very largely the question of amenities which has already been stressed to a great extent. North Devon is essentially an area where amenities play a very large part. This little book says that no less than 14 sewers drain into the Taw Estuary, which is comparatively narrow, and that the sewage is completely untreated. It also says that in the Torridge Estuary, which joins the Taw Estuary, there are six permanent discharges of untreated domestic sewage, and also effluent from a gas works and a milk factory. The people of North Devon are greatly disturbed by the fact that there is no power in this Bill for the river boards to take any action against those who pollute the rivers. I join with those hon. Members who have urged the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to give us a definite undertaking that legislation will be introduced which will deal with this very important problem of river pollution at an early date.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Mallalieu: Every speaker except one has pressed the Minister to ensure that some special interest or another shall be represented on the river boards. The hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Brigadier Peto) was no exception. He exerted his pressure, as so many other hon. Members have done, on behalf of the fishing interests. Other hon. Members have pressed on behalf of amenities, whatever they may be, and

still others have spoken on behalf of transport, navigation and the rest.
The one exception, if I understood his words aright, was an hon. Member opposite who said that these boards should be composed not of representatives of particular interests but of men of broad minds. I agree with him. I hope the Minister will resist this pressure from all sides of the House to make these boards sectional. There is no objection in itself to having fishermen represented on the boards. It seems to me that their interests coincide with those of the community as a whole in almost every respect. They are a fine lot, and I am all for them. But if we allow the fishermen to be represented, what other interests shall we be able to exclude? We shall get all sorts of people on these boards, some of whom I would be determined to exclude.

Mr. Keeling: Has not the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that, according to Clause (2, c, ii) fisheries are to be represented? Therefore, I do not follow his argument.

Mr. Mallalieu: A number of interests will be represented—for example, the local authorities—and in that respect the Bill is defective. I do not wish any special interest of any sort to be represented. I would prefer not to have representatives, but to pick people with broad minds who will consider the interests of us all.

Mr. Coldrick: How does my hon. Friend propose to select these people with broad minds? Are they to be elected, or are we to confer on the Minister the prerogative of appointing them?

Mr. Mallalieu: That, of course, is a point. Undoubtedly, there are difficulties. Personally, I would be prepared to give the Minister the right to appoint the members of these boards, and I cannot see that there would be any great objection to that course, but there would be a great objection to having certain interests represented on these boards. The interests to which I am referring are the industrialists. The chemical works, for instance, and in my area the textile mills, are the guilty persons so far as pollution is concerned. To some extent, the river boards will have to act as judges, in the sense that they will have to decide whether a prosecution shall be


made against a particular interest for pollution. It would be a dangerous thing if the guilty men themselves were allowed to act as judges. Therefore, these river boards, which will play an enormously important role, should be kept as free as possible from sectional interests. In other words, keep them unpolluted.
I think, as we all do, in terms of the rivers I know best. The river I know best is the river which gives its name to the constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—the Colne.

Brigadier Peto: Nelson and Colne?

Mr. Mallalieu: No, this is the real Colne—the Colne Valley. It was the first constituency to return a really independent Socialist to Parliament—Victor Grayson. However, that is somewhat apart from the subject. I have traced every one of the sources of the Colne. I lived there all my life; I was born and bred there. I have walked all over the moors and I have seen the stream start from the great black moorland barrier of Standedge, from Nab's Sarah, from the Nabs and Wessenden. At its sources the water is absolutely clear. It is lovely Yorkshire moorland water—bright, cool and fresh. By the time it has come down into the valley and formed a river, and passes through the industrial townships of Marsden, Slaithwaite, and all the rest of them, and has reached the county borough of Huddersfield, the water is fresh no more. It is not a sparkling stream. It seeps its way rather shamefacedly along by-ways through the town, until it comes out on the other side. It has been coloured by the dyes from the textile works, and by chemicals; it has been filled with old skips and rusty hoops, and has become an absolute disgrace.
I do not want to see the people who are responsible for that disgrace having any say as to whether a prosecution for pollution shall be undertaken. I want these administrative boards to be as free and unfettered as they possibly can be, so that they can carry out the work which they are intended to do under this Bill. That work is nothing more nor less than to make the rivers of this country what they were years ago, and what they should be again. They should be the centre around which our industrial towns

can be developed and built—the centre not of dirt and sewage, but of pleasure and of happiness, so that the towns can spread out from something that is attractive and fresh, and once again can be places not of drabness or dirt but of colour and good living.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: When the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to give way to me during his speech, he referred to my connection with local government. My only local government connection lies on the banks of that part of the Thames which flows a few yards behind these benches—

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move,
that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 19.
I hope it is not necessary to say that this instruction on our part is in no sense actuated by any desire to penalise the great town of Merthyr Tydfil. As the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) knows, the first official engagement which I ever fulfilled as an Under-Secretary was to open a factory in Merthyr Tydfil which, I am glad to think, is now giving a considerable measure of local employment. Nor have we any desire to penalise a town which, even at this time, under a policy of full employment, has 2,392 people out of work. But Clause 19, if it is passed, gives the Corporation of Merthyr Tydfil the power to build tied cottages in its town, linked to the job, and the power, also, to turn existing free cottages into tied cottages. We, on these benches, are not opposed to this proposal; we think it an entirely sensible one and, indeed, an inevitable one, but we also think that the Socialist Party cannot have it both ways and cannot, in agricultural districts, attack the farmer when he wants a tied cottage and, in a town of this kind, ask for the powers themselves.
According to Parliamentary Procedure, the only way in which we can draw attention to this hypocrisy is to move an instruction to the Committee to omit Clause 19. Of course, the proper way to deal with the problem that confronts Merthyr Tydfil, and confronts innumerable farmers and landowners all over Britain, is to build more cottages. It is, no doubt, particularly ironical that Merthyr Tydfil should be almost adjacent, as a Parliament constituency, to that constituency represented now by the Minister of Health, by whom the programme, in the old days, of 100,000 houses built in the first year and 200,000 built and building in the second year, was so contemptuously rejected at the general election. Now, in Merthyr Tydfil—and this is very relevant to this proposal—there are no fewer than 2,803 people waiting for cottages or houses—10 times the number that have been rehoused since the war, and a good proportion of the number rehoused have been rehoused in temporary houss.
It is no satisfaction to the 2,803 families waiting for homes in Merthyr Tydfil to know that the corporation want power to build cottages tied to the job of working for the council, nor, indeed, might it be much satisfaction to the council employees who get these cottages to know that if they lose their job they will also lose their cottage and will join the 2,803 people who are waiting for homes in their town. It seems to us, in the interests of fair politics, this issue ought to be raised. Here, the town of Merthyr Tydfil, which, I am sorry to say, is controlled by the Socialist Party in its municipal affairs, is asking for the very same power which the Labour Party Conference at Margate last year condemned by a card vote. Here, in what passes for the democratic ways in which these votes are arranged, 1,558,000 voted against tied cottages and 1,555,000 voted against the resolution calling for their immediate abolition. The Minister of Health who spoke, and asked the Conference not to accept the resolution, said he had a total objection to tied cottages. Yet here is a neighbouring constituency asking for exactly the same power.
It used to be the case that when local authorities wanted to build tied cottages, they asked for power to do so for particular groups of workers, like the police, or the fire brigade, or school teachers, or

somebody of that kind. Lately the practice has grown up of asking for power to build cottages for all employees, without specifying. I do not pretend for a moment that this is the first time a local authority has asked for such power—that has happened repeatedly—but this is certainly the first Bill I have seen, since the Socialist Party became the Government, in which a Socialist council is asking for full power to build tied cottages for all workers in the town of Merthyr Tydfil. It is quite true that they are following a good precedent; all the great new corporations created by the present day administration are asking for the same power. Indeed, hon. Members opposite will remember that the National Coal Board had recently to evict somebody who ceased to work for a particular mine, which case would have had very little prominence had it not been raised in another place. The town council of Merthyr Tydfil, as it is fully entitled to do, circularised all Members of Parliament with a petition, a statement, on behalf of this Bill. I think I need add little more, but to quote from that statement, for on that statement we stand. We believe these powers are reasonable, but we ask that what is given to towns like Merthyr is given also, without a great deal of political uncharitableness, in rural districts of England. The words of the statement are:
There are circumstances when it is essential that an employee of the council shall be housed near to his work"—
that is exactly what farmers ask for in regard to key-men. The statement goes on to add:
or near to some valuable public property for which he is responsible.
The food of the nation is certainly public property and that, again, is what is asked for in agricultural districts. In order to make the position plain, and to get a statement, if we can get one, from some hon. Gentleman opposite, I move this Instruction.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Motion.
The Debate on this Instruction will give hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to clear their own minds on the subject of tied cottages. It is a subject which has been discussed on many occasions with a good deal of prejudice


and, if I may say so, with a good deal of woolly thinking. This desire—this very proper desire—of the borough council of Merthyr Tydfil to provide accommodation for their employees, particularly in view of the appalling housing situation in the country as a whole, brings this issue pointedly to the front. It enables hon. Members opposite to consider whether or not they are really opposed to the tied cottage in principle, because there is no possible distinction that can be drawn between the desire of municipalities to provide accommodation for their employees and the case of the farmer who desires to do precisely the same thing. If hon. Members opposite desire to support Merthyr Tydfil in this request then, logically and morally, I think they are bound to support private individuals who wish to do so, and there is an opportunity tonight in this very brief Debate for this House of Commons to come to a very clear decision of principle on this matter.
I say that hon. Members opposite, if they support the Bill of the council of Merthyr Tydfil, are forfeiting any right to denounce the tied cottage in other connections because if they do denounce it, they are exposing themselves to this charge—that they like the tied cottage where the person providing it happens to be a friend, but they dislike it where the person providing it happens to be a private individual. That is logically and morally an indefensible position, and I am perfectly certain, for that reason, hon. Members opposite would not seek to adopt it. I must ask them, if they support the Bill tonight, to appreciate that they are forfeiting any right to denounce the tied cottage as an institution in other circumstances.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Haydn Davies: It is quite obvious that this Debate has nothing at all to do with Merthyr Tydfil, because such an Instruction as this could have been moved in respect of Bills concerning many other towns. I really am amazed that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) should have moved this Instruction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell the House why. He referred to the fact that he once went to Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have been there many times.

Mr. Davies: He went on the first day after his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in a former Government. He will recall that I travelled with him on that occasion.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentlemen were fellow travellers?

Mrs. Leah Manning: Did my hon. Friend travel with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford to give him publicity?

Mr. Davies: I am asked if I travelled with the hon. Member for the purpose of giving him publicity. All I can say is that I wrote the truth; and the hon. Gentleman did not like what I wrote about his visit to Merthyr Tydfil; so I would say that it was in the interests of truth. But let me remind the House, in all seriousness, that here we have a classic example of a derelict town reasserting itself. It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak of Merthyr Tydfil, because it is one town that they killed; and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was one of the principal instruments in killing that town.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I remember very well that journey to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; but I must ask, if we are talking of the death of Merthyr, whether it is not the fact that when the Labour Government began there were 5,000 unemployed there, and that when they finished there were 12,000 in Merthyr alone?

Mr. Davies: One fact that I remember about the visit of the hon. Gentleman is that he went to Dowlais to open a factory which was to bring industrial prosperity to this town. It was to give employment to 217 girls under the age of 17. That was called "bringing back prosperity" to a town which was the foremost iron town of the world. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to all the credit for that great and brave venture. After that visit, he never went there again.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite wrong.

Mr. G. Thomas: The hon. Member cannot take it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can take criticism, but this is a question of fact. I cannot take a completely false statement of fact. I have been there many times since, and I was there three months ago.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Gentlemen that we are debating a Motion about an Instruction concerning Clause 19.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman taunted me on my memory, and so led me to embark upon a line of argument which is possibly out of Order. I promise I shall not go any further along it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing to withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] I was speaking of the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister of the Crown. I cannot hope to discuss what he has done as a Member in opposition; but, as you said, Sir, we are dealing with an Instruction concerning Clause 19. Why is it that hon. Members opposite never worried about a Clause such as Clause 19 when it was applied to Birmingham, or Southend, or Swindon, or Felixstowe? Yet they suddenly find something sinister about such a Clause when applied to Merthyr Tydfil. They are the last people, really, who ought to mention the name of Merthyr Tydfil. I was born within a few miles of Merthyr Tydfil. That is why, although I am a Member of this House for a London constituency, I do not apologise for speaking in this Debate about Merthyr Tydfil. I remember the time when night was the same as day there, because the furnaces in Merthyr Tydfil were up, and as dusk fell over Merthyr Tydfil the glow of the furnaces illuminated the sky, so that we had a perpetual light as bright as daylight, because Merthyr Tydfil was working.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the hon. Member tell me whether he is in favour of or against having tied cottages in Merthyr Tydfil?

Mr. Davies: I am in favour of the Corporation of Merthyr Tydfil having this Bill. I am sorry, but hon. Members opposite, when they raise these matters, must take what comes back to them—especially the hon. Member for Monmouth. I thought he might have learned a little since he came to my country. Obviously, he has not.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras has left it.

Mr. Davies: I remember occasions when the furnaces of Merthyr Tydfil—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Are the reminiscences of the

hon. Member about the furnaces of Merthyr Tydfil in Order on a Debate on a Motion for an Instruction to leave out Clause 19?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must be allowed to develop his argument in his own way.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is, I know, a most fortunate person. I live two or three yards outside his constituency.

Mr. G. Thomas: How lucky!

Mr. Davies: I can understand that he is completely ignorant of the situation existing in the industrial areas. Ignorance is the cause of this Bill being opposed. I have no wish to detain the House, not even with reminiscences. If I wanted to do so, I could keep this House going all night—[HON. MEMBERS: "And be out of Order."]—within the rules of Order, in talking about unemployment in Merthyr Tydfil, which I knew. When a town and county borough has gone through everything that Merthyr Tydfil has been through, and comes to this House with a Bill, asking this House to help it to put itself back on its feet again, and assist in a great effort towards rehabilitation, it ill becomes this House to quibble about one Clause, when similar powers have been already granted to six corporations in Great Britain, most of them Conservative. I oppose the Motion.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made it quite clear that we are not opposing the Bill, or the principle of the building of tied cottages by the Corporation of Merthyr Tydfil. We entirely agree that they should have these tied cottages. What we want to show is the hypocrisy of hon. Members on the other side of the House in passing the Bill without any demur, when they have opposed the erection of tied cottages in the countryside. I am surprised that I do not see on the other side of the House those hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies and have condemned the principle of tied cottages. I am surprised that they are not in their places to condemn this Bill.

Mr. Dye: rose—

Mr. Baldwin: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] As the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) was one of the hon. Members I had in mind, I withdraw. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will declare whether he is in favour of this Clause 19 or not. In Standing Committee on the Hill Farming Bill, one of the most important Clauses was emasculated by an Amendment which stopped the proposed grant for the building of tied cottages on the hill farms of England, Scotland and Wales; and that Amendment killed the usefulness of the Bill. The Minister himself knew that tied cottages were necessary, and he put in the Bill provision for a grant. He had to give way to pressure from his own back benchers and the grant was withdrawn from the Bill. One of the most important matters affecting agricultural cottages—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss agricultural cottages here, because that subject does not arise under this Motion.

Mr. Baldwin: I am afraid the Debate generally had gone rather a long way from the Clause.

Mr. Speaker: That thought had occurred to me, and I am now trying to get a little nearer to the subject. We have wandered too far.

Mr. Baldwin: In that case I cannot develop my argument. I would ask the House to think back on what has happened. It is quite unfair for the Socialist Party to introduce tied cottages when it suits them, while not allowing to agriculturists a grant to build tied cottages. I hope that all hon. Members opposite who support this Clause will be reminded about it on future occasions.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Austin: The last hope entertained by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is a vain one, because I am certain that all hon. Members on this side of the House will support my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) in his desire for a Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Baldwin: So do we. That was not my hope.

Mr. Austin: I support my hon. Friend on two grounds. I have been written to

by my local authority, which is Conservative in colour and with whom I am generally at variance. However, in this matter they support my hon. Friend, and I propose reading out the arguments adumbrated by them:
The reason for the Clause is that there are many cases where it is essential that an employee of the local authority should be housed near his work or near the valuable property for which he is responsible. In such cases the local authority should be able to provide a dwelling house.
[Laughter.] The jeers of hon. Members opposite reflect their failure to appreciate constructive legislation.
The other ground on which I support my hon. Friend relates to the dispute between ourselves on the question of tied cottages. I am no authority on the countryside or tied cottages, but the principle between us is, that whereas in the past there has grown up the traditional dreadful sanction of the tied cottage in the countryside, with all it meant to the farm labourer and his children, and their welfare and surroundings, in this Clause we recognise the reasonable form of tied cottage under the surveillance of the local authority. For that reason—particularly with a local authority like Merthyr Tydfil, which is trying to rebuild the shattered life of that town—knowing that the employees will be assured of much better conditions than private enterprise could ever have given under the farm tied cottage system, I will do all I can to support my hon. Friend.

7.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): It is clear that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and those who have supported this Motion are not interested in Merthyr Tydfil at all. There is nothing new about that. In my view, hon. Members opposite have no cause to congratulate themselves on trying to get a Debate on tied cottages on the side, because, as they have said, they are not really interested in Clause 19 of the Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill. They have moved a Motion which apparently they are not prepared to support. It will be understood by the people in the country they have tried to prevent this local authority from obtaining these powers. There are channels open to the hon. Member if he wants to have a proper Debate on this question; but he


should not stage a Debate in circumstances in which we obviously cannot discuss those matters which he wants to discuss. Perhaps I have put that a little strongly, but I feel this to be the misuse of an occasion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a perfectly proper Parliamentary Motion, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 19," can possibly be construed as a misuse of an occasion?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Before you give a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question. If this Motion is put down under our procedure whereby a Private Bill, if it is opposed, has to be dealt with in this way, and since it has been said repeatedly during this Debate that hon. Members opposite have no serious intention of opposing the Bill, how is this Debate in Order at all?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather a wide question. I warned the House that we were getting very wide of the Motion, and I tried to keep the Debate within the limits of the Motion now before the House. A Motion "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 19" is, of course, perfectly in Order. It is a matter of opinion whether this is a good use or a misuse of an opportunity; one person may think it is a perfectly proper use, whereas another may quite legitimately think it is an improper use. That is purely a matter of opinion.

Mr. Silverman: When such a Motion is moved it is opposed Business, and no complaint can be made; but when it has been said repeatedly, even by the mover, that he does not mean the Motion at all, and does not oppose the Bill, does not the whole thing become an abuse of the procedure of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order as far as I am concerned.

Mr. J. Edwards: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that in using the expression "misuse of an occasion," I am not talking about any formal points of Order or of procedure. I am saying that if hon. Members opposite really want to debate these things, there are ways open to them.

I am sure they will be misunderstood because of the way in which they have contrived to bring these matters out. I would point out that other corporations have, even within the last year, asked for these or similar powers, but no one has objected to the Second Reading of those Bills; this objection has not been taken previously by the Opposition. Therefore, the right attitude for us to adopt on this kind of matter is: If there are differences of opinion they should be dealt with in Committee. My advice to the House would be that, it would be very bad were we to give to the Committee an Instruction such as is contained in this Motion. Were the Motion persisted in, I should ask the House to resist it on the grounds that the Committee on the Bill are quite capable of dealing with all the legitimate issues which can be raised on this Clause.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The Opposition cannot sit down under the lecture on Parliamentary procedure and tactics just delivered by the "veteran" Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. It is perfectly proper, and exceedingly useful, for the Opposition to draw the attention of the House and of the country to this extraordinary inconsistency in the Socialist attitude. We shall continue to do so. We shall not be misunderstood in the country; nor, at the next general election, shall we let Members of the Government forget their inconsistencies with regard to tied cottages in agriculture and tied cottages in municipalities—and do not let them hope that we shall.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I had not intended intervening in the Debate on this Motion, but after hearing so much about Merthyr Tydfil I find it impossible to sit here without speaking. I was rather disappointed that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who knows my constituency so well, should have so used this small Bill of ours. Most of what the Bill means is just a cleaning up of a constituency which has been so horribly ravaged over a period of 170–180 years of large-scale industrialism. The attitude of hon. Members opposite is a very sad mistake.
I know there is more important Business to discuss than this Motion, so I am


not going to spend any time in reminding the House how terribly this district was abused when the Opposition were in power. I wish, however, to correct one or two of the figures given by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I understood him to refer to the period between 1929–31. Those were the days of that miserable, minority, powerless Government, so different from these days, and Merthyr Tydfil is profoundly thankful for the change. The hon. Member's figures were hopelessly wrong. He said that there were only 5,000 unemployed in that constituency in 1929. He had better look at the figures again, because he will find that he has made a great mistake. We had mass unemployment under Tory misrule for no less than 16 years.
A whole series of similar Bills have been passed through this Parliament without any protest being made by hon. Members opposite, and there are over 100 precedents for this particular Clause. It has taken a Labour Government to attempt a real cleaning up. I want this Clause, because there is a need for it. This Motion is a miserable peg upon which to attempt to raise the whole question of tied houses, and to attempt to pillory the movement behind this Government because of resolutions on tied cottages passed at various conferences. What we object to with the tied house is the sanction and power vested in the individual. My constituency knows as much as can be known about tied houses. I will give one instance to the House.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. If I understood your Ruling aright, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was speaking, you said that we could not enter into a general discussion on tied cottages. Is that not what the hon. Member is now doing?

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the noble Lord. I was listening with some trepidation to the arguments being adduced. I hope we shall not get into a general discussion on tied cottages.

Mr. S. O. Davies: We had hundreds of tied cottages in my constituency. In 1924, these tied cottages were untied. The industrial concern responsible for them offered the houses to the workers. They bought them, and within a month of the

transaction being completed, the concern closed down. These houses are to be publicly owned, and the interests of the tenants living in them will be protected by the community. We in Merthyr Tydfil prefer to rely on the sense of social justice of our people rather than upon the insincere pleadings of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will soon be ready to come to a decision.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I do not wish to delay the House, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was singularly unfair to Members on this side of the House in complaining that we were not interested in Merthyr Tydfil. If he had suggested that we were not interested in other towns which have been given similar powers under private Bills he would probably have been more correct, but in bringing the affairs of Merthyr Tydfil before Parliament in this way, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has clearly indicated interest in the matter. It would be just as unfair to suggest that Members sitting on this side of the House are not interested in Merthyr Tydfil, as it would be to suggest that Members opposite are not interested in this country because they voted against conscription.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member is claiming that those who are interested in this Motion have put it down because of their love for and interest in Merthyr Tydfil. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 13 years, and this is the first occasion I can remember a Tory Member mentioning Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member will appreciate that I am not entitled to impute motives. I always understood that on Private Bills we do not bring to bear any party attitudes in our discussions. [Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Members opposite receive that statement with derision. I at once declare myself a supporter of Merthyr Tydfil in requiring the whole of this Bill. Should this Motion be pressed to a Division, I shall be happy to accompany the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) into the Lobby. The question here is that under certain circumstances a tied house is essential. In the words of the promoters


of this Bill, an employee should be housed near to his work, and that is a statement which has been made in favour of the tied house by many people.
I do not believe it would be right to deprive Merthyr Tydfil of the Bill for which it asks. I am in favour of letting Merthyr Tydfil have Clause 19 of this Bill. I realise that similar powers have been taken by other local authorities and national institutions, and I am glad to learn that hon. Members opposite now accept the principle that where it is necessary that an employee should be housed near his work, or near some valuable property for which he is responsible, it is desirable for his employer to provide him with a home, because the Government have failed to do so.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — RIVER BOARDS BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," resumed.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: We now go back to the River Boards Bill, and I was saying when we were interrupted by the Private Business that although I represent a constituency with a 12-mile frontage to the River Thames, and I am also a member of a local authority on the same river, that river is outside the scope of this Bill. My interest in this Measure is as a member—I think the only one in this House—of the Executive Committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which, as hon. Members may know, co-ordinates the efforts of 44 different national associations concerned in preserving rural scenery and the amenities of the countryside, and in protecting them from injury. This Council holds very strongly—and in agreement with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards)—that on each of the river boards there should be one member, or more, appointed for the specific purpose of representing the interests of amenities, and with the prime duty of guarding them from injury.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) asked for a definition of amenities. I will define amenities in connection with this Bill by defining the threats to amenities. These are fourfold:

first, there is the threat of the pollution of rivers by sewage or trade effluents, about which we have already heard a great deal in this Debate. The second danger is that river boards may widen, deepen, and straighten river courses beyond what is necessary for proper drainage. I could give a very good example from my own constituency—the River Colne. It is not affected by this Bill, and is not the River Colne to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred; this Colne flows from Hertfordshire through Middlesex into the Thames. It has been deepened, straightened, and embanked to an entirely unnecessary extent, and to the ruin of its scenery. The third threat to amenities from river boards is the destruction of trees and aquatic plants, with the inevitable disturbance of fish and, very likely, their extinction. The fourth threat consists in general injury to riverside landscapes, to which the beauties of this country owe so much.

Mr. Dye: What about the beauty of flooding?

Mr. Keeling: I am not suggesting for a moment that adequate steps should not be taken against flooding.
The Minister suggested that councils of counties and county boroughs could be trusted to protect these amenities, but under this Bill there is no obligation to take them into account. Clause 2 (5), which makes representation on river boards proportionate, to some extent, to rateable value, does not suggest that at all. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that people with broad minds were wanted on the boards, but what reason is there to think that the representatives of local authorities would be selected for their broad minds? There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that. The hon. Member also said that we did not want any sectional interests on these boards. What about the fishery interests, which are to be specifically represented? I suggest that they are a sectional interest, and that amenities are not a sectional interest. There is no one in the country who, in his heart of hearts, is not interested in protecting the amenities of our rivers. I believe it is a mistake to suggest that representation of amenities on these boards would be the representation of a sectional interest. I do not understand how there could possibly be any real


objection to it, and I hope that when we reach the Committee stage the Minister will agree with that view.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I hope the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) will forgive me if I do not follow up his remarks, although I must add that I am very sympathetic to most of the points he has made. I join in welcoming this Bill, chiefly because I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that we may regard it as the precursor to specific legislation. That legislation is, I believe, long overdue. Action in connection with pollution of our rivers, drainage, and fisheries is extremely urgent.
I want to deal particularly with the question of pollution and fisheries, with some special reference to my own constituency. The tendency to take away from local authorities some of their functions, while quite inevitable—and we must recognise it these days—is, in some respects, to be deplored. But in this case I do not shed any tears at all over the elimination of 1,600 local authorities concerned with river pollution, and their replacement by, I believe, about 29 new boards. These boards can at least take a large and comprehensive view of the wide areas which will come under their control.
At present, the position seems to be this: that the control of pollution is shared by far too many different bodies operating on one and the same river, with the result that those well downstream may just as well do nothing if the stream has been contaminated in its higher reaches, or if it is likely to be contaminated below them. I hope that the public conscience will be really stirred as a result of today's Debate. It is an absolute scandal that this country's lovely rivers and waterways have, in many cases, been allowed to become stinking ditches and open sewers. That is strong language, but it is language which, I think, can be appropriately used. It is more true, of course, of industrial areas than other parts of the country.
So far as the industrial areas are concerned one would except to some degree the West Riding of Yorkshire where efforts have been made to counter and overcome this trouble of pollution. The threat to health and the threat to angling interests, however, as well as to amenities,

cannot be exaggerated, so long as the present general situation continues.
I now draw the attention of the Minister to what is going on in my own constituency. Bedford and the river which it is on are partners in establishing a pleasing atmosphere and a pleasing setting for local people and for visitors alike. There is in my constituency a flourishing angling club. I will read a letter that I have here from the Assistant Secretary of the Bedford Angling Club, which deals with the recent disgraceful pollution of the Great Ouse in the vicinity of the town. The letter states:
May I record my disgust and alarm at the great mortality of fish in the town stretch of our river this past week. There must have been many thousands of small fry dead or in the last throes of suffocation. I learn too, of the death of three swans also in the town stretch, and that a fourth is not expected to recover.
All this is due to coal tar or coke residue poisoning. It can be observed rising from the bed of the river, and it appears to explode on reaching the surface, sending out a large patch of oily substance. This on a fish's gill-cover means certain death.
But the main thing is that polluted streams are the source of our drinking water. Scientists are still only working on elementary data as to the cause of typhoid, paralysis, and (among cattle) foot and mouth disease, and it is my firm belief that when a stop is, put to rivers running like open sewers we shall see an improvement in the position regarding bacterial diseases.
The culprit in the shocking case put forward in the letter I have read is none other than the local gas works. Public opinion in my constituency has been very deeply disturbed by what has happened. A visiting angler has told us that he has seen roach, tench, dace, gudgeon and minnows jump out of the water on to the bank where they died. This particular individual has very sensibly sent samples of the water in the polluted area to the Ouse and Cam Fishery Board at Cambridge. Of course, the Bedford Gas Company has apologised. I would add that had this particular undertaking been nationalised at the time of the incident I have mentioned, I would, naturally, not have allowed them to get away so lightly.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that under Clause 2 (2, b) he will see that in the Great Ouse Catchment area as a whole, fishing and drainage interests will be as largely represented as possible on the appropriate river board. This particular Clause appears to allow for some


flexibility in the numbers serving on the board for a particular district. My question is put because of the great importance of both angling and drainage in Bedfordshire and in the surrounding area. Incidentally, I was glad to hear, in reply to a question which I put to the Minister in his opening speech, that the words "fishing interests" include anglers as such, and fishing interests are not for the purpose of this Bill confined just to the net fishing interests in the estuaries or mouths of rivers.
Speaking of estuaries, enables me to draw attention to the abominable conditions which obtain in many parts of the country where rivers run into the sea. These conditions provide an impenetrable barrier for fish that want to go up the river as well as for smolts on their way down. Let us take the River Lune in the North Western part of the country as an example. I am familiar with this particular river from where it rises in the charming part of the country known as Ravenstonedale in Westmorland to where it runs out to the sea, in a filthy mouth, in Morecambe Bay. In 1945, no fewer than 52 salmon were picked up dead by water bailiffs within a mile or so of the town where the river enters the sea. Many of them had been fed on by gulls flying inland where infection could be spread as the result of the fish being in a poisoned condition. The figures for brown trout caught at a given point at the mouth of this river declined for the particular year 1921–22 from 872 to a mere 63 in 1946.
It is this river which pours water into the sea in an area covering 150 miles of coast line from Liverpool to Barrow-in-Furness where the discharge of crude sewage for every mile each 24 hours is reckoned to be in the region of not less than 200,000 gallons. This represents, roughly, 40 large bucketfulls every yard daily. In this particular cesspool, thousands of bathers disport themselves in the summer months, and many of the shrimps and prawns we eat live and feed in the area. Cod fish and flat fish in the vicinity are often caught with their eyes out and their fins and tails corroded by the acid which is discharged into the sea. All I have said illustrates the urgency and the magnitude of this problem of pollution.
I have not the time to go into other aspects of the situation which are covered

by the Bill, but if it helps to clear up some of the shocking and disgraceful things I have described, it will have proved well worth while. At any rate, I wish the Government well in going ahead with its provisions, and I look forward to some early legislation to follow.

8.0 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) has some connection with my constituency in that Bedford is on the Great Ouse, which passes through my constituency, out into the sea. It is one of those rivers which do go into the sea. I have yet to know one that does not. The Debate has gone according to the expectations of the Minister, and the various interests have been discussed. It is obvious that many of those interests conflict. The Bill is the outcome not only of the latest report but of White Papers, reports, and Royal Commissions which go back as far as 1865. My feeling is that all those inquiries have never really faced the fundamental trouble of our rivers. They have said that there are many interests which conflict and they recommended a compromise which, while it does not satisfy all the points demanded by one interest, does not offend any of them so grievously as to make it oppose the plan.
I want to draw attention to the purpose of a river. When we are talking about river boards, it is important that we should get the purpose of a river clearly in our minds. Paragraph 4 of the Milne Report says:
It is, in fact, impossible to give an order of importance which would apply to every river.
I disagree with that statement. I believe it to be evasive nonsense. The Ministry ought to get back to nature. If they went back to the natural causes of rivers, and even if they were in favour of the realisation of the Vision of St. John the Divine, in the 21st Chapter of Revelations, that there was no more sea, they should at least accept the fact that rivers perform a perfectly natural function, which simply is to carry off the rainfall, sleet, hail or snow, which the earth cannot hold. I believe the purpose of a river to be to carry off the rainfall which the earth will not hold, and to get it away to the sea.
We have known since the Creation that man's interference has upset that process. I would like to remind the House of the origin of the word "drainage." It comes from a very old English word "dreahnian," which means dry. Unless one is a manufacturer of mackintoshes or umbrellas, one would like to think that everybody would remain dry. Hon. Members have given us a historical account of the rivers that run through their various constituencies. They have gone back as far as Charles I. Perhaps I might go further back, to the Creation. We must remember that the dry land was first ordained on the third day, and that food has been produced from that dry land ever since. Fish were ordained on the fifth day, but man arrived only on the 6th day. Ever since then, our rivers have suffered as a result of man's interference.
On this matter of drainage, I want to stress what I believe to be the fundamental purpose of the drainage of a river. I shall not say this only because I am particularly interested in drainage authorities, but because I believe that unless we try, in the Bill and in the legislation which will follow, to realise the fundamental purpose of a river, we shall land ourselves into confusion which may have very disastrous results not only upon our own generation. I do not believe that we can accept the hopes which have been expressed by some Members who gave evidence before the Milne Committee, that the idea of serving a river will inspire all the interests concerned to forget their own antipathies and to work purely with esprit de corps for the sake of the rivers; it is putting the river on the same basis as the Golden Calf and I do not believe that that will succeed. We have to realise that the Great Ouse and the Red Sea have different characteristics, and that just because the Red Sea was divided to let the Israelites through, we cannot expect that the worship of a river, which seems to be indicated in the Milne Report, will succeed.
I will now quote from paragraph 57 of the Report, which states:
We are of opinion, however, that the principal defect of the existing system is not the overlapping functions, nor the possibility of conflict between interests, but the fact that no single body is charged with the duty of co-ordinating the various river interests or with the duty of ensuring that the requirements of all such interests are fully weighed when questions affecting the river are under

review, with the result that the river is not used to the best advantage of all the interests concerned.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) referred to these points. The conclusion we must come to in asking what are the interests which will serve a river is that those interests can be summarised under three heads. We must curb, and if possible, eliminate, the possibility of river flooding. We must have an assurance of pure and adequate supplies of drinking and domestic water for three-quarters of the population of England and Wales—from the Milne Report that is the percentage of population which relies upon water supplies coming from rivers—and we must ensure that the fishery interests have the opportunity to catch healthy fish. Those are by far the most important considerations affecting all rivers. Particular places may have interests of considerable local importance, but I believe that none of those subsidiary interests exceeds in importance the three which I have stated.
I am sure that the Minister desires that Members who serve on the river boards should be experts. He said so in his opening speech today. If that is so, let us see who the expert ought to be, to serve those three main purposes which I mentioned. Obviously there must, first of all, be drainage, water and fishery experts. The Minister announced in his opening speech that he proposes to put back Clause 2 in its original form. That is a great betrayal of the drainage interests. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should tell us why he said that we should not talk about a vote on the matter. Was he forgetting that there is a different sort of vote from that which is going to be cast inside the river boards themselves, a vote of the county boroughs for the political party? I very much wonder whether this matter has something to do with what is happening. This decision will affect agriculture in a disastrous way.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the hon. and gallant Member develop that point a little further?

Major Legge-Bourke: I thought I had made my meaning quite clear. I was saying that the county borough councils obviously represent a great interest in the country. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will let me pursue my


point, I think I can make it clear. I believe that the decision to restore the original drafting of the Bill is disastrous to agriculture. It is obvious that the moment we start discussing drainage we think not of agricultural drainage, but of the drainage of the urban areas. I am not suggesting that the urban areas should be overlooked, but I believe we should be up against a problem of the proportion of representation between the two. I believe the Minister has come to a wrong decision in giving so much representation to the county boroughs.
The Bill is really based on contributions. Though the Minister said we should not have representation on a proportionate basis, I believe that the reason the county boroughs are being given such a prominent place under Clause 2 is because they are the people who often contribute big amounts. I believe that to be wrong. Other Members have said that those who pay should get representation on the basis of he who pays the piper calls the tune. I should have thought that this Bill would treat the rivers as one complete entity from the source to the estuary, and do what is best for them. If that be so, it is not always true to say that those who contribute the most are the most likely to serve the best interests of the river.
There is another basis on which we might work. It is possible that we might conceivably work on an acreage basis, but the difficulty there is that the drainage of one acre of urban land can clear more water than the drainage of one acre of agricultural land, because of tarmac, rooftops and the like. There is another basis which is very sound from the point of view of this Bill, and that is risk. What happens if the drainage goes wrong and the water is not got away to the sea in the way it should be? Who are the people who suffer most? The right hon. Gentleman has a sufficiently vivid memory of last spring to know quite well that the agricultural interests often suffer grievously and in particular is that so with the Fen area, upon which he relies a great deal, as does the Minister of Food, for an important item in our diet, namely, potatoes. There is no area more affected by flooding than the Fens. It is risk that we should work on.
I am interested in this matter of why the county boroughs should be chosen.

About 50 years ago, the buying of commissions in the Army was abolished. What the Minister is now asking is that, because the county boroughs may be in a better position to pay than perhaps some of the internal drainage boards for the work done by the river boards, they must have the greater say. That principle is interesting when it comes from a Government whose views about profits, and that sort of thing, are those of the present Government. I would have thought that money would have been the last consideration which would have been allowed to creep into this. The Minister would improve this Bill if he based it on the risk involved rather than on anything else. If something goes wrong, whose is the greatest risk? If those people with the greatest risk are given the greatest representation on the river boards, we would have a far more stable set-up.

Mr. Alpass: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that there is no risk in water getting into a house and spoiling its contents?

Major Legge-Bourke: Not for one moment do I suggest anything of the sort. I hope I made it clear that there are two aspects of drainage, agriculture and urban, and obviously both must be represented. I am not suggesting that we should exclude either one or the other, but it seems to me that the proportions about which we are arguing at the moment are wrong.
There is another matter that I wish to mention, and that is the matter of water supplies. Clause 9 gives great powers and, as has been indicated by the Minister in his speech, these powers will enable river boards to conserve water. No one will quarrel with that, and it is one of the best points of the Bill that Clause 9 exists. Before the Bill finally becomes law I hope the Minister will also give some thought to the steps he might take to reduce the consumption of water. The amount of water used today is very much greater to do the same sort of job than it was 100 years or 50 years ago.
Any of us who served in the desert during the war had a horrible awakening as to what had to be done with a small amount of water, and it is quite extraordinary what can be done in a one half-pint mug of water. One could wash one's teeth, shave, and wash one's socks and


handkerchiefs in that one half-pint of water. I am not suggesting that a Socialist Government should impose such a stringency upon the unfortunate housewife at the present time, for she already has to go through a good deal, thanks to the Government. I urge the Government to give more attention to the actual consumption of water as opposed merely to conserving it. There is no mention in Clause 9 of underground resources, and before I conclude, I shall say something on that point. Several hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer), mentioned the matter of the amendments to the Land Drainage Act, 1930, not being before this House before this Bill was presented. I very strongly support all that he said, which was borne out by the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills). It would have been highly desirable to have produced an omnibus Bill incorporating all the water legislation, including that at the present moment administered by the Minister of Health.
Some of the Clauses in this Bill will be out of date in a short time if the Amendments to the Land Drainage Act are considered as soon as I hope they will be. In particular, there is the second paragraph of the Third Schedule of this Bill, which states categorically which Sections of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, affect this Bill. I have been looking at some of the amendments which have been suggested to the Central Advisory Water Committee, and, if the Minister does not know it, I want to inform him that the Sections stated in the Third Schedule to this Bill will be out of date in a very short time if the amendments which have been recommended to that Committee are put into effect.
I do not know whether the river boards—for it was not clear from the Minister's opening speech—are to be on the lines of the map at the end of the Milne Report. I rather gathered there is to be some variation in that matter. What I feel strongly about in this respect is the Fen area, because on that map the Nene and Welland Catchment Boards are merged into one. I do not deny that there is a great need for closer liaison between the catchment boards, although they have done very good work in the past, but if the argument for merging the

Nene and Welland Catchment Boards is the fact that, between the area of those two boards, there is a barrier bank which, if it breaks, allows the water from one river area to enter into the area of another, that argument equally applies to the barrier bank existing on the southern side of the Nene Catchment Board area, which, if it breaks, will allow the water of the Nene Catchment Board area to enter that of the Great Ouse Catchment area. In other words, if a barrier bank breaks anywhere the water from one river area will go into the area of another board.
On the basis of that argument, if that is the argument—and I do not know whether it is or not—that induced the drawing of the map at the end of the Milne Report I would say that if carried to its logical conclusion it would mean that all the catchment boards in the Fens at the present moment divided by barrier banks ought to be under one board. I am certain that that would be a very great mistake, because there is nothing in this matter as important as local knowledge, and already some of the catchment boards have been criticised for the fact that they tend to be too remote. It is, therefore, important that we should look around and see if there is another way of doing it. I believe there is.
We shall have to thresh it out in Committee, but I am putting forward a suggestion to the Minister now in order to give him as long as possible to consider it. I suggest that a permissive Clause should be inserted in the Bill to allow the Minister to set up liaison committees between contiguous river boards, in particular in places where more than one river board drains out into the same estuary or bay. The sort of areas I have in mind are the Wash, the Thames, the Severn and the Humber estuaries. In the Humber estuary the Lincolnshire, Hull and Yorkshire Ouse river boards might be concerned in a liaison committee for that area; in the Wash estuary, the Ouse, Nene, Welland and Witham river boards; in the Severn estuary, the Wye, the Severn, the Avon and the Somerset river boards; and, so far as the Thames is concerned, the Roding, Essex and Kent river boards, the Thames Conservancy Board and possibly the Port of London Authority as well.
I put that to the Minister in the hope that he will give it his consideration because I believe there are some things which affect all these rivers, and that if one river takes its own line it may make it very difficult for one of the other rivers also draining into that estuary. I suggest that the membership of it should be approximately two per catchment board, with the clerks of the respective present catchment boards or the new river boards taking it in rotation to be secretary to the liaison committees. We should be able to achieve quite a considerable improvement when calamities happen or when there is any question of building training walls in the sea and so on.
I would like also to deal with the matter of governmental administration. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) touched on it. It is said that it is very difficult for a man to serve more than one master, but this Bill has the bright idea of imposing three on the river boards. It reminds me of the old limerick:
There was an old person of Lyme
Who married three wives at a time.
When asked, 'Why the third?'
He said, 'One is absurd,
And bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
I am not suggesting for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman has not given this matter some thought. While the name of his officer will be a very important one in connection with the work done by river boards in the future—Agriculture and Fisheries—at the same time I am inclined to think that we shall suffer from far too much interference from the Ministry of Health. Navigation will obviously be one of the subsidiary interests in many of the rivers, but the last thing we want is to have the Ministry of Transport suddenly popping up and querying a decision already made by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I would rather see the right hon. Gentleman taking the title of Minister of Land and Water and being responsible for all the water administration of the country. I dread to think what will happen to these unfortunate river boards if they are to be administered by the Minister of Health one day, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries another and the Minister of Transport occasionally.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: And the Coal Board.

Major Legge-Bourke: I dare say that will come into it. If this Bill aims at centralisation, which I believe to be right in this case, it is very stupid for the Ministers concerned not also to aim at the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to encourage the river boards to take far more interest in pollution. We had a slang expression in the Army, "To brass up people." When concluding his speech, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of brassing up the river boards, blew his own trumpet, which was the last thing he should have done. Having blown his own trumpet, he seemed to forget that what he is doing in this Bill is to make it far more difficult for the agriculturists in the country to do the jobs they are at present doing.
The point I wish to leave in the Minister's mind is that the first people who will suffer if things go wrong in the river boards are the agriculturists. Therefore, he should be a little more favourably disposed towards these people who are not only experienced agriculturists but have consistently served the main purpose of the rivers since they were first created, and that is, to get the water away and keep the land dry. Let him remember that the water was there before the land. As far as my constituency is concerned, the lower he can keep the level in the Fen rivers, the better pleased we shall be.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Tolley: In introducing the Bill, the Minister spoke with a certain amount of enthusiasm for it, and in listening to this Debate, I have heard expressed in all parts of the House an enthusiasm which will be found among a large number of people outside this House. This is an attempt—only one of many attempts which, I hope, will be made—to solve a problem which has been troubling this country very materially for a good many years, that of flooding. It also deals with river pollution and the beautifying of our rivers and waterways, and I shall refer to all three subjects. While I express a certain amount of enthusiasm for the Bill, I have also to express a certain amount of disappointment at the constitution of the new river boards. I hope we shall have on these boards men of real enthusiasm for their


work, as we have had on the catchment and drainage boards.
I must express a tear here that, as in the case of the catchment and drainage boards in the past, these new boards will suffer from a lack of funds. I wonder how the Minister arrived at the figure which he believes will materially assist these boards in their work. There is at present a great amount of work to be done if we are to prevent the happenings of the past. I live in and represent a constituency which for many years has been subjected annually to very severe flooding. If we are to tackle flooding, it must be done on a national scale and the application of measures to prevent flooding will involve an enormous amount of money. It is, therefore, only right and proper that the national Exchequer should be responsible for the money which must be forthcoming if this problem is to be tackled, as it must be tackled, in the immediate future.
On the question of river pollution, Clause 9 lays down that the river boards can from time to time report to the Minister. I believe that the Minister will be responsible and not the river boards, and I would like this answered because it is important. While certain powers are laid down and the Minister will ask for reports, who will be the authority to take action against firms which send their trade waste into the rivers—or private individuals or, let it be said, county councils or boroughs, which still send their effluent into the river on a large scale and are at present the greatest culprits in river pollution?
That has been allowed to go on for a long time. Am I to understand that if a report is made from a river board to the Minister concerned, he can then be in a position to take, and will take, responsibility to see that the nuisance is examined immediately? I remember a case not long ago of a river which fed a large turbine plant in connection with a generating station. The screening plant was clogging materially, and it was impossible to get a sufficient volume of water throughout the plant. After careful consideration and analysis it was discovered that crude sewage was responsible and, after investigation, it was found that the crude sewage was being put into the river some six miles away from those works. It might have been a serious

matter for the local authority had immediate action not been taken by them and the nuisance obviated. Reference has been made to the enormous expense which will be involved by any local authority at present discharging this effluent into the rivers if they have to put down a sewage plant. In the interests of the general health of the community, however, they should put down this plant, and they should have done it years ago instead of waiting till now. So I am concerned about river pollution from what I have seen and know of it.
I pass to the plea made in all parts of the House, which I hope the Minister will accept, that the river fishermen of old England shall have better representation on these boards. I am an enthusiastic fisherman. I know of no better sport and I know of no better way of spending a day than sitting by the side of a river alone with Nature and one's own thoughts, away from the hurly-burly of the world and at peace. It is the fishermen who, in the main, will help to protect and preserve our rivers because of their close association with the rivers, because of their desire to be able to catch fish instead of finding that, as a result of river pollution, the fish are floating on the water dead, or that there are no fish to be caught because they have been poisoned by effluent. These are the people who will give more assistance than anybody else towards clearing our rivers of this pollution, and will report to the Minister or anyone else should they find it. The plea has been made from all parts of the House, and I ask the Minister to reconsider this because, in the set-up of these boards, the fishing interests are not being represented properly. If he will do that, he will earn the grateful thanks of the million or more fishermen who want to see the rivers improved considerably.
I am interested also in water conservation. It has always been to me a strange and idiotic thing that in times of flooding we have enormous amounts of water and then, during the summer months, along has come a drought and farmers have had to get rid of their cattle and sheep and pigs, and crops have been allowed to be burned up because of lack of rain. While in this country nature has provided us with more water than we need throughout the year, because we have failed to take


effective, scientific measures to preserve the glut of water during the floods, we have to suffer on an equivalent scale during the droughts. So, from the standpoint alone of the possibilities of an occasional glut, it will be in the greatest interests of this country and in the end, despite the cost, which will be on a large scale, it will save in the value of crops probably thousands, if not millions, of pounds in summer when we have long periods of drought, if we do something about water conservation.
I regret that because of the short time at my disposal I have to conclude now. I am keenly interested in this matter, and I look forward to the next Bill, which I hope will be introduced almost immediately, dealing with water drainage and the prevention of flooding. I welcome this Bill as a preliminary to what is to follow, I hope it will follow soon, I congratulate the Minister, and I hope I shall have the pleasure of doing so on the introduction of his next Bill.

8.36 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) with great interest, both as a brother angler and because he said a great deal which interested me. I shall not follow him because, in my short speech, I wish to touch on some of the same points. I welcome this Bill as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. River legislation and administration in the past, from a layman's point of view, has been involved and confusing. I believe there are 45 fishery boards, 53 catchment areas, and 1,600 pollution boards. Yet quite a lot of districts have not any boards to deal with their rivers at all. In my own part of the world, near the headwaters of a river, I do not remember in 24 years any member of any board coming to see me about anything. Therefore, I agree that consolidation is needed and is overdue. The River Pollution Act of 1876, even when it was young, was not very efficient, and now it is 72 years old. It is really ridiculous that in all that time we have never altered regulations such as those which allow mines to discharge absolutely untreated water into a river. I hope this Debate will help the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee, and that on the Committee stage we shall

get some Amendments, and that the Debates will help the next Bill, which I hope will not be long delayed.
As regards representation, I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the alteration made in another place, for I believe that alteration was right, and that what the Minister said in his arguments against it proves that the weak part of the Bill lies in the financial provisions rather than in the arrangements for representation. I suggest that the money deficit on the part of the fishery and drainage boards might be made up by a grant from central funds without having to upset the balance of power, as one may call it. It has been my experience on local authorities that you do not get them to take much interest in fundamental matters relating to rivers, that is, drainage and fisheries. We put some of our members on various boards where, I have no doubt, they do excellent work, but the councils seem to take little notice, and these subjects are seldom discussed. I had an example the other day which was to do with county boroughs and that impressed on me what the attitude of many county boroughs is towards rivers. A new satellite town is being built in a corner of my constituency and the chairman of the council designing and arranging it had meetings at which people were allowed to ask questions. Someone asked what was going to be done with all the excess water which was going to be discharged into the neighbouring brooks as the result of miles of tarmac roads in a town of 60,000 inhabitants. He said that it would go into the brooks, and then into the River Mole, after which it was the concern of the Thames Conservancy. To all intents and purposes he said, "That does not worry me, that is their trouble." But this is a very serious matter, from an agricultural point of view.
I fear that the main interest of many local authorities is keeping down the rates rather than preventing pollution and improving the fertility of agricultural land. Although county councils will do their share I do not think county boroughs will be very much interested in drainage or fisheries. At the moment they are much more concerned about the way in which the rates are going up because of new fire brigades and new schools, and they will not spend money on big schemes to prevent pollution.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) I am on the committee of the British Field Sports Society, which is investigating pollution in a great number of rivers. It has issued two reports, copies of which I see in the hands of some hon. Members. The evils of pollution cannot be exaggerated. It affects us in various directions. It affects the question of water supply in the first place. Especially in the East of England water supply gets shorter every year and in spite of the efforts of the Minister of Fuel and Power I think we shall require more water for baths as time goes on and have difficulty in finding it unless something is done about pollution.
I come now to the question of fresh water fisheries. There are hundreds of thousands of anglers who, like myself and the hon. Member for Kidderminster, get pleasure and recreation from fishing. A noble Lord in another place said that there were two million fishermen.

Mr. David Jones: Inshore fishermen.

Colonel Clarke: Fresh water fish today provide a certain amount of food. I know that in the old days they were not so palatable as sea fish, except in the case of trout and salmon, but we do get a few calories and proteins from them, and if the pollution could be got rid of in the area of spawning-beds upstream, and the estuaries could also be cleansed, there would be an increase in the supplies of salmon and trout. That would mean a substantial increase in the amount of food. In 1871 from the River Tyne no less than 121,600 salmon were taken. They were taken by commercial fishermen, not by anglers just fishing for sport. Yet in the last quinquennial period, 1941/5 the average catch was only 701 fish. I think the Minister of Food would be very glad today of that great number of salmon which used to be obtained. They are a very high class food, not only high class in price, but in actual food value. I believe a good deal of the sport of anglers could be improved because in many rivers there would be salmon to be caught by anglers where today there are only coarse fish. Not that I want to say anything against coarse fish. I think that a really good roach fisherman is as good a sportsman as a salmon fisher and the man who gets up at dawn to catch carp is as good as

the man who goes out in a boat after a 9 o'clock breakfast to catch trout.
I regret that the Minister could not see his way to arrange for panels of fishing representatives from whom he could choose members for the river boards. Failing that, I think it would be worth while for every river board to have a statutory fishery committee. The fishery boards are being completely abolished under the Bill and there is a danger that valuable accumulated knowledge will disappear and be lost. There will be a loss of continuity and we shall have to build up a tradition of technique again. I think the Bill has great potential value. It is really only paving the way for a bigger Measure to follow. I hope the Minister will put into cold storage certain suggestions which have been made today for that later Bill. I was a little surprised that he was so pleased about this Bill because I believed the motto of his Party was more that of facing the future than of consolidating the past.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: Like other hon. Members I welcome the general principles of the Bill. It seems perfectly logical that in the new river board areas the various interests, local authority, fishery, drainage, pollution and so on, which in the past have worked independently, should now be co-ordinated. But that co-ordination can only be really successful if the various elements building up the river board feel satisfied that they have got their rightful place on that board.
I make no apology for devoting the few moments available to me for putting forward the case of one group which still feels a sense of grievance. I hope that the Minister will do all he can to remove that grievance. I refer, of course, to the anglers. The Minister may well feel that he is doing justice; it might even be argued that he is, but it is not enough merely to appear to be doing so, it must be manifestly obvious to the people concerned that he is being just. They feel that rather than gaining something under the new Bill they are losing something they have had for many years. Under the old fishery boards the angling interests had direct representation. That now disappears, and those who represent angling interests, are to be appointed by the Minister.
It is, of course, true that the Minister has conceded a little during the progress of this Bill in another place. At first, under the Bill, the representation of the angling interests was to consist of
persons appointed to represent fishing interests in the river board area. …
nothing more. Now the Minister has agreed to add that those persons shall be appointed
after consultation with any association or person appearing to the Minister to represent a substantial fishery interest in that area.
That is an advance, but it still withholds from anglers the opportunity of having direct representation by persons acceptable to them and to their organisations.
Nothing definite is laid down as to what the representation of fishery interests shall be. It would be a good thing to try to make it more definite. Under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, the anglers were given the right to nominate their representatives on the fishery boards. It was quite logical that they should do so because they have paid and do pay a considerable sum for licences, and it is right that their point of view should, by statute, be represented. If the Minister says, "That is all very well, but there are many societies and associations of anglers, quite uncoordinated, and how am I to decide which is to be considered in this matter of representation?" He will find that the point can be met by an Amendment which has been put down by some of my hon. Friends to empower the Minister to accept a scheme submitted jointly by the fishery interests. In other words, if the Minister is prepared to accept a scheme, then a scheme will be forthcoming.
My next point concerns the matter of committees. Under the Bill, the boards have to set up a finance committee, but they are left free to decide what other committees they shall set up. It would seem reasonable and logical to lay down that there shall be special committees to deal with such matters as drainage, pollution and fisheries. I would like to see in the Bill a definite instruction that a board shall have a fishery committee.
My next point refers to the funds of the existing fishery boards. So far as I understand the position the new river boards will take over all the finances of

the existing fishery boards, and will, of course, take over all the future revenue from licences, etc. This income has in the past been used by the fishery boards exclusively to promote fishery interests. Under the Bill as it now stands there is no guarantee that these funds shall be so used in future, and it seems as though they will go into the general pool. Anglers feel that money which has been collected specifically for fishery matters should in future continue to be used for fishery purposes. The Minister may say, "If this is done, and if the money so given is to be used for fishery interests, you must accept the converse that only such moneys—and no others—must be used for fishery interests," and that therefore there might be nothing further forthcoming for those interests. If the Minister puts forward the point of view that there must be a pooling of all the moneys, that money cannot be reserved for fishery purposes, it becomes all the more essential to ensure the full and adequate representation of those fishery interests.
In view of the short time at my disposal I will not go into this matter of pollution, much as I would like to do so. To make these river boards work it is essential that there should be the enthusiastic co-operation of all the interests which are to be brought into a co-ordinated whole. The anglers who, as has been mentioned, number somewhere between one and two millions, are very much interested in this matter. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have not been given full and fair treatment so far. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Minister will think again, and see what can be done to make sure that these river boards start off happily and harmoniously.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) spoke about the amenities which can be affected by river pollution. He confined his remarks to the destruction of these amenities within the close range of the river itself, such as tow paths, walks by famous beauty spots and so on. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to another aspect of this same question. It can happen that the pollution of a river may affect the amenities of the countryside a very long way away, even a hundred miles away. I will give a particular and important example.
An hon. Member who represents a Liverpool constituency mentioned how serious is the pollution at a river mouth in his constituency. I will show how this contributes to the spoilation of the Lake district. Where the industrial areas of South Lancashire find they are unable to draw water from their own rivers to supply their needs, they search further afield. The easiest place for them to find good water in large quantities is in the Lake District. Now, therefore, we have the unfortunate spectacle of one lake after another being turned into a reservoir. I hope the time may not be far distant when the Lake District may become a national park. When that time does come it is to be hoped at least some lakes will be left in their natural state. We do not want to be protecting merely a chain of reservoirs. There are some people, of an engineering turn of mind, who see a great deal of beauty in the enormous concrete dams which we find at the outfalls of these lakes, but the majority of people in this country would prefer to see the lakes left in their natural state and the polluted rivers of Lancashire cleansed.
I would ask the Minister to say how he envisages that these river boards will connect up with the county agricultural executive committees. Those committees have certain responsibilities for land drainage and I hope that he will be able to explain that the link up has been properly worked out, and that there will be neither duplication of functions, nor a gap which will leave part of the field covered by neither authority.
Now I wish to refer to the River Tees. One hon. Member representing a Huddersfield Division spoke about the "guilty men" whom he hoped would not be allowed representation on these river boards. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) spoke at some length, and quite accurately, about the pollution by industry at the mouth of the Tees. Further up that particular river there is another sort of "guilty man," and I do not know whether hon. Members realise how important this other "guilty man" has become. I refer to Government Departments. Very wide powers are granted to Government Departments to build installations of one sort or another. They may be camps for the Army. This is a case of the Ministry

of Supply building a factory. I think that it is worth while, in one minute, to explain exactly what happened. During the course of the war the Ministry of Supply built a factory in that area, and because of security, or so-called security, reasons, the local authority had virtually no knowledge of the purpose for which that factory was being built, nor had they any power to enforce the by-laws. I believe that in fact plans were deposited as a matter of courtesy, but it was not generally known what the object of the factory was. It happened to be the production of penicillin which produces an effluent of a particularly noxious kind.
Since that factory started work, a long argument has been going on between all the authorities concerned and today, although this sounds like Alice in Wonderland, the effluent from that factory is being carried by road in tankers from Barnard Castle and deposited in the sea, I think, at West Hartlepool.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has not that been subject to an inquiry and settled satisfactorily?

Mr. Vane: To the best of my information, it has not yet been finally settled. Even if the matter has been settled, it does not detract from my argument which is that for a long period of time, at great expense and inconvenience, effluent from a factory has been carted by road and dumped in the sea because the local authority had no real knowledge or power over the Government Department which settled in its area and built this factory. I would not have mentioned this matter but for the fact that I understand that the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Lavers) is ill and unable to be here today. I thought that it was such a flagrant example of bad planning that this Debate would be incomplete if it was not mentioned. In conclusion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to satisfy himself?

Mr. T. Williams: When was that particular factory erected?

Mr. Vane: It was erected during the course of the war. Of course, that made it easier for the Department concerned to plead security reasons. None the less, what has happened once could very easily happen again. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be sure that, before this Bill finally leaves this House, he or some


other Minister has powers to ensure that this sort of lack of planning and waste of time, effort and money, is not going to be repeated in the future.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We spent a great deal of time yesterday, and we have spent the greater part of tonight, discussing water, yet I think it is true to say that the House will agree that this Bill and the Measure we discussed last night only touch the fringe of the problems which concern us in connection with the water supply and the water resources of the country. Our discussions on this Bill have really centred around two particular topics, the representation on the river boards and the question of pollution. I do not think that any voice has been raised in disagreement with the general proposition that river boards should replace the catchment boards, the fishery boards and the 1,600 authorities responsible for the prevention of pollution. We accept the view that it will be better to have one board discharging these duties in one area.
However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the warning given in the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) of how very serious it will be if the River Tamar is included in the Devon River Board. I hope that he will appreciate the real risk that he may run of being involved in another civil war if that mistake be made.
A good deal has been said in the Debate as to whether the lowest limit for county council and county borough representation upon the river boards should be kept at a half or increased again to three-fifths. The right hon. Gentleman announced that he proposed to put the Bill back as it was before it was considered in another place. I must say that, listening to his reasons, I did not find them in the least convincing. I cannot conceive why it is that a Minister of this Government, who have shown themselves so avid for power, should be reluctant in this instance to accept an offer of greater flexibility, of greater scope for operation than existed in the Measure as it was first introduced.
Indeed, it may well be, particularly in connection with the Welland Catchment Board area, that the alteration the

right hon. Gentleman proposes to make will involve a departure from the principle which runs right through this Bill. As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) pointed out, he who pays the piper will call the tune. When the Parliamentary Secretary winds up this Debate, I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory assurance and promise that, in the sort of case to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) referred, the biggest contributor will not be over-weighted on the river boards by the representatives of county councils and county boroughs.
The hon. Member for Lincoln emphasised the amount that his city was paying in drainage rates, and made an eloquent plea, which must have impressed itself upon the right hon. Gentleman, for more representation for that city upon the river board. I apprehend from what has been said that these boards will be quasi-local authorities intended to represent men from all parts of the areas covered by the boards. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) whom I see in his place, said he thought that they should be composed of men of broadminded views. I hope they will be. He then thought that it ought to be left to the tion of totalitarianism.
One thing is quite clear from what the hon. Member for Lincoln said. He accepts the view, as, indeed, the Government do—and it is the principle of this Measure—that those who contribute most to the funds of the river boards shall have the greatest say in the expenditure of those funds and in what the river boards shall do. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the principle behind the constitution of these river boards I see that he nods his head in agreement. If that be so, I shall be interested to hear him expound his view, if he will, and I shall be interested to hear the hon. Member for Lincoln expound his view, when we discuss another Bill: for, surely, to be consistent, he will then have to contend that the man who makes the biggest contribution to the Exchequer—the highest Surtax payer—should have the highest representation in this House of Commons. That is the argument behind this Bill. That is the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Lincoln. I am sorry not to see him here.

Hon. Members: He is here.

Mr. Alpass: Is that the Tory "new look"?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am trying to deal quite shortly with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Lincoln, and the principle behind this Bill as put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. When I defined the principle, he nodded his head in agreement. He did not see the logical conclusion of this argument. I think that, whether we adopt that principle or not when considering the question of representation, we cannot avoid consideration at the same time of this problem of pollution, on which so much has been said in this Debate.
These boards will carry on the functions of their predecessors, the catchment boards and the fishery boards. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the good work done throughout the country by those who have worked so hard upon those boards. That is a tribute which ought to be paid, although I did not notice that the Minister said very much about the work they have done. They will disappear, and we ought to express our thanks to them.
As I see it, the chief problems these river boards will have to tackle will be connected with pollution. In my experience, this question falls into two categories: first, industrial pollution, industrial effluents; and secondly, the pollution from sewage and sewerage works, due very often to the sudden incursion of storm water which sweeps out the sewers, and sweeps down even more dirt than the amount with which the sewerage works are designed to deal. With regard to industrial effluents—this is not a party or a political point—in the last century, people of all political views have been far too apt to conclude that by erecting a factory and producing something, and using water for the purpose, one is at liberty to discharge that water in a filthy condition, without regard to the effect it may have on those who have to receive it lower down the river. That is a general attitude, which must be deplored. I hope that when planning industries and factories consideration will be given to the future discharge of effluents—whether they be nationalised or not—the need for which was demonstrated by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), for it is a matter of great importance.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield in a strong speech, argued that there should be no industrial representation upon river boards. He said that industrial representatives would not be interested in preventing pollution. Summarising his argument, he said that guilty men were not interested in establishing their own guilt. If that argument be true, it applies with equal force to county and other small boroughs. Yet what do we find? Under this Measure some part of that half or three-fifths proportion of the river board—an undefined part—will consist of county borough representatives.
I, personally, consider it very important that, while county boroughs should be represented—I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, were his argument developed in connection with local authorities, by saying that they should not be represented—it is important to provide that their representation should not exceed that of the county council. I am inclined to the view that this Bill would be much improved if it placed some limitation on the percentage of members who come from county boroughs; otherwise, if it is left vague, and if the financial basis of selecting representatives is adopted—to which I referred just now—it may well be that in particular cases the local authority element on a river board would consist possibly of 80 per cent. county borough representation, which would be very wrong. It would be disastrous.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the hon. and learned Member indicate any part of the country, according to the Milne Report or any source, where there is a vague possibility of a county borough having a one-half representation on any river board?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: My reply to that is, firstly, that the areas of the river boards are not specified in this Measure, and, secondly, even if we accept the areas shown in the Report as being the areas of the river boards, it will be very difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion, taking into account the exclusion of certain nationalised industries from rateable valuation. I can comprehend that in a thickly-populated industrial area we might well get a case where the financial contributions coming from the county boroughs would exceed the financial contributions coming from the county councils. If that be so, and if we apply the financial basis in selecting representatives,


it will follow that the number of representatives from county boroughs will exceed the number from the county councils.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely, the hon. and learned Member is forgetting that at least two-thirds of the total membership of the river boards will consist of non-county council or non-county borough representatives. If the hon. and learned Member looks at the figures again, he will see that it is well-nigh impossible for a county borough to have a majority on a river board.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that in any circumstances the county borough representatives should have a majority on a board. I was saying that the county borough representatives could have a majority over the county council representatives. I am sorry if I did not make that clear, but that was my argument. It would be an improvement if the Bill could be amended so as to provide that that cannot happen.

Mr. Tiffany: Why should the hon. and learned Member use the figure of 80 per cent.?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was dealing with 80 per cent. local authority representation. I hope I made that plain. If I did not make it plain to the hon. Member, it may be his fault or it may be mine. Perhaps he will look at HANSARD if I have put the argument too swiftly for him.
The real object of this Bill is to prevent pollution. There are two methods to stop river pollution. The first is by means of instruction and persuasion—and I hope that every effort will be made to use that method—and the second is by taking legal proceedings, either by prosecution, or by proceedings in a civil court for an injunction. While I hope that persuasion will be effective, I have my doubts, having regard to what has happened in the past. So far as local authorities are concerned, it may be that the choice which lies before them will be either to indulge in a theatre, or to create a new sewage works. I fear that the municipal theatre may win, and that the polluted waters will continue to run down

the rivers. Prosecutions are really not very satisfactory. We shall never cure pollution unless we can find some easier method than now exists of establishing the fact that pollution is occurring, and the source from which it comes.
I can speak with some experience. I was engaged, some time ago, in a case in which it merely had to be proved that a river near London was being polluted. It was an attractive trout stream, and people from London enjoyed its beauty. For the best part of two miles the bed of that river, below the effluent, was covered with sewage fungus. Fish were killed, and all the rest of it. In the summer people could be found bathing there, unaware of the extent of the pollution. To establish the fact—which was obvious, I think, to any impartial person—that pollution was occurring took 31 days in the High Court. The blame for that might be put on the lawyers, but I would make this point: it was a bitterly fought case from start to finish, and the local authority were denying pollution. In the end new sewerage works had to be created, and cost a great deal of money.
Whatever authority is made responsible for stopping pollution, there is always the difficulty of proving the actual source of the pollution. It is so easy to say to someone, "You are causing pollution," and for that person to reply, "You are quite wrong; the pollution comes from higher upstream." It is easy for someone to pour in effluent which does not last long, but which is highly poisonous and spreads down the river, killing fish in the process and doing a great deal of harm. If an angler reports that fish are dying, and a sample is taken of the effluent, it is probably found that it is clear, because the poisonous effluent has gone. It is, therefore, a difficult matter to prove guilt. In this respect, it is very unfortunate that we have not had an opportunity of considering a Bill to improve the law in connection with the prevention of pollution before considering a Measure to create authorities which will operate the law as amended.
A great deal has been said on both sides of the House about the need for securing more representation of fishing interests on river boards. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to define more fully than the Minister did the expression "fishery interests," which is no definition


at all. There are fishermen and fishermen; some call themselves anglers, and some do not, but it would at least be valuable for us to know the classes which the Minister had in mind when he referred to fishery interests.

Mr. T. Williams: All of them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am delighted to hear it, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection on the arguments put forward from both sides, will recognise that he will be doing justice if he increases the representation of fishing interests on the river boards. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more on that subject.
I want now to turn to the question of the relationship of the river boards to the water boards which will be constituted under the Water Bill. It will be remembered that power is taken in that Bill to create new waterworks, which may mean impounding more streams, the creation of more reservoirs, and the fixing of compensation water at certain levels. I think it is of the utmost importance that, at the earliest possible stage at which any proposal of that sort is even contemplated by a water board, approach should be made to the river board for its views and to obtain its reactions. What happens now is a very expensive and unsatisfactory process. If it is intended to create a water board and objections are raised, what happens? There is a public local inquiry, with the water board and possibly the catchment board and various other interests objecting. When we have a river board taking over all these functions, it would be an improvement if the Bill creating the river board provided for the closest possible liaison with the water board, whose duty it is to deal with the extraction and collection of water for health purposes.
This is a simple Bill. I think it is capable of some improvement in Committee. It is a step in the right direction, but no one who appreciates its contents can possibly pay it the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to it in the course of his peroration. No one can say that this is a Bill which will stop pollution. It does nothing to stop pollution. I cannot help thinking that the tribute which the Minister paid to the Bill, and paid to himself, was done deliberately, because he feared that no one else, either on this

side of the House or on the other side, would give it that degree of praise. This is only a machinery Bill. It is not the first machinery Bill that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into this House. Like the Agriculture Act, it is largely machinery. We hope the machinery will be used in the right direction, and we on this side of the House hope that it will not be long before we get the other Measure which is promised—a Measure which will facilitate the cleansing of our streams and rivers, the prevention of pollution, and the making of the countryside more attractive for those who live in it and a pleasanter place for healthy recreation and enjoyment.

9.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) take such exception to what I thought was a very unexceptionable remark by my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly true that every hon. Member who has spoken for the Opposition has referred to the terrible lack of interest in these related problems during the last 70 years. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) took us back to Ethelred the Unready, or about that time. Hon. Members have referred to decade after decade and century after century of Government by hon. Members on that side of the House, during which time even this much has not been done. We have, at any rate, done this, which is a good deal more than the other side have done. Therefore, I think that my right hon. Friend ought to have been allowed to express a little satisfaction not only with himself but for a Government that is prepared to find the time for a Bill of this kind.
We have had a good deal of discussion about one or two particular points of principle, which I will pick up as I go along. May I refer to the argument which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry used about the pity—I think that was how he put it—of our not having a wider Bill, dealing with the amendment of the law with regard to pollution, before this Bill. It seems a rather topsy-turvey argument that, because, by the nature of things, it has taken us a little time since the Water Act, 1945, to get a report, consider it and be ready with a Bill to put before the


House, we ought not to go on with a Bill for improving the machinery. If by the time we have the report of the Central Advisory Water Committee we have our Bill ready and our new river boards established and straining at the leash, we will be much further advanced than if we waited a couple of years marking time before trying to set up our river boards.
There is one matter of detail which I should like to answer here. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry asked me about the relations between the water boards, to be set up under the Bill we considered yesterday, and the river boards, to be set up under this Bill. I am advised that both catchment boards and fishery boards are required to be consulted by the water authority and have power to object. Our river boards will inherit that right, and therefore, be in the position which the hon. and learned Member, quite rightly, wanted them to be in.
There is general concern on one point, which was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member and which he attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer). In passing, may I say that the hon. and learned Member ought not to try to create mischief amongst us on this side for we can do that among ourselves without his help. It was the matter of the piper calling the tune, a phrase which he used in regard to the majority on the new river boards being from local authorities. That seems to me, again, to be quite the wrong approach. If, in fact, there is to be given to certain people on these boards the obligation to contribute most of the money, and also at the same time a veto on the raising of the money over a particularly low figure, which is 4d., and if those people were denied the larger representation, we would be running pretty headlong for a situation in which we would not get the money at all.
It would he much wiser to give them an effective voice, even a majority voice, in the spending of this money if we want them to vote the money and see that it is used wisely. We feel it is much better to follow what I believe are the recommendations of the Milne Committee—I may be wrong in that, because I have not looked it up—and give an effective majority to the local authorities so that in that way we shall both get the money for the river boards and encourage them

to take an interest in them. I shall come back to that in a moment. I should like to say a word about the county borough representation. It is difficult for me, as a county constituency Member with no vested interest in this matter, to understand why there should be this quite unexplained prejudice on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite against the county boroughs.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to some of the speeches from his own side of the House, particularly that of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who said that the county boroughs saved a great deal of money by discharging untreated sewage into the rivers.

Mr. Brown: I have that in mind. If the restriction which was in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, were removed, which is what we are proposing to do, I frankly cannot see anything in the Opposition's attitude to that but prejudice. We are certainly not conferring any new privileges by that, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member will accept the proposition that it does not follow that, because an individual county borough somewhere or other has, in fact, allowed untreated effluent to be discharged into streams, county boroughs everywhere ought to be under an abitrary restriction, which prevents them having representation on a board, which, if they were something else, they would get anyway. It seems to me that there is a prejudice against county boroughs, and I do not think it can altogether be brought about because one on Merseyside misbehaved itself.

Mr. Keenan: It did not misbehave itself. I pointed out that because of the report of the Scientific and Research Committee, it was relieved of the obligation to do it and, after all, it was not a Government-aided but a rate-aided scheme, and that is why it had to be done cheaply.

Mr. Brown: I am not clear which of us heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but we will both read him in the morning and sort it out. If we have a county borough which is not, or has not been, a good fellow in this respect, and if we put it on a river board, it may be found, as very often happens, that it will take on a great enthusiasm for the job it is doing. That is a traditional feature of British


local government. We are much more likely to find that in the case of a county borough which in the past has not been up to standard on the job.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman will recognise—I say this in view of the words he used—that I did not suggest that every county borough was an offender in this respect. I only suggested that in the past some of them had been.

Mr. Brown: Is that not exactly my point? If it is not argued that they have all been offenders or that the majority have not, why is it argued that they must all suffer a quite arbitrary ban for the misdeeds of individuals? I will turn now to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate for the Opposition—[Interruption.] I gather he is only an hon. and gallant Gentleman; I hope that some time he will be "right."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We want a change of Government.

Mr. Brown: He began by suggesting what has been a theme song for many people—the hon. and learned Member for Daventry used it—that this was only a small Bill, a machinery Bill, which reduced the number of authorities but did nothing more. That does not do justice to this Bill. The removal of the enormous number of authorities in this field, about which the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) spoke, does an awful lot. It is not just a little thing. It is perhaps a beginning, but to get adequate modern machinery takes us a very considerable way. There are new powers. We will, for example, now have powers of default against a river board which does not do its job in regard to pollution, powers which we had not in the past. That must surely be a considerable step forward. Taking this step now does not suggest that we shall delay the major measure.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked about the special navigational arrangements in the Humber, which he compared with the Thames. The answer is in Clause 20, which gives one river board, or two or more river boards in concert, with the Minister's consent, the power to promote local Acts. Our view is that the matter he had in mind is much more appropriate to a local Act promoted in that way than to genera] legislation of

this kind. He asked whether river boards will be empowered to finance the smaller internal boards which may otherwise be in difficulties. That would appear to my right hon. Friend to involve an Amendment of the 1930 Act. Indeed, the sub-committee appointed by the main Committee at our request to deal with land drainage is specifically concerning itself with the financing of land drainage works in future and will, therefore, cover the point he has in mind. He then went on to use bad language. It is just my luck that whenever I have to follow him he uses bad language. He said that he was shocked.

Sir T. Dugdale: It was very mild.

Mr. Brown: He was shocked to hear of the restoration of the three-fifths, and he told us that although what we were doing would seem to reduce the total local authority representation, the county councils did not oppose it. I am surprised to learn that they will be prepared to cut off their nose to spite somebody else's face, which is what it looks like. I can only repeat what I have said already, that we regard it as unquestionably desirable that the local authorities should have the greatest confidence in the machine they are being asked so heavily to finance. We believe that the risk of their operating a veto is not nearly so likely to occur if we give them, in effect, a majority.
I believe that the individual example of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not altogether a good one. I do not know whether he could have picked another one if he had tried, but the answer to the Welland Catchment Board, and the fact that specialist interests are the main contributors there, is that if you argue this in the case of the Welland, then you argue that representation on the board should altogether go by contribution; whereas, we have been saying that there is a certain specified membership, as high as one-third, which shall go to specialist interests because we need their guidance and their specialised knowledge, and what they contribute has nothing to do with it. They are there as specialists and are important, and if you use the Welland argument too strongly, you run the risk of having the other argument used and losing some of your specialist representatives elsewhere, and we thought, on balance, that would be wrong.
There is the other point that under the old boards local authorities had a minimum of two-thirds, whereas in this Bill we are giving them a maximum of two-thirds. I believe it is in the Yorkshire Ouse where we are reducing local authority membership very considerably. My right, hon. Friend made it quite clear that this Bill is very much a matter of compromise between a variety of interests each of whom will fight, have fought to some extent, and also to a large extent cancel each other out. On the whole, we believe we have achieved the best balance between the various interests, and that the least mischief will be done if we reinsert at a later stage in the Bill the original provision about three-fifths which got lost in another place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not lost."]
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked me, as did other hon. Members, whether fishery interests include upstream anglers; whether, indeed, they include all these people now on the fishery boards. The answer is "Yes." An angler is a fisherman for the purpose of this Bill and we regard the fishery interests to be consulted as being those on the fishery boards. I can go further and say that it will be the intention of my right hon. Friend, when setting up these new boards, to regard as the representative of fishery interests to be consulted the existing fishery boards. The position gets a little difficult when he comes to reconstitute at a later stage, because then there will be no fishery boards. It is my right hon. Friend's desire to have the utmost consultation with the people who ought to be consulted, who have the specialist knowledge, and who make it work. It will simplify his position considerably and the whole scheme as well if between the boards being set up and the subsequent reconstitution, fishery interests will form voluntarily amongst themselves associations and groupings of associations which the Minister can consult.
It appears to us to be wrong to try to tie this down in a statutory way. These new boards will be new organs of local government, and it is not usual in any of our local government machinery to tie down local government bodies as to the form their consultations should take, and the people with whom they should consult. That emerges, and they do the job

reasonably and properly. If any behave badly, there are all sorts of ways in which to deal with them. I have had experience of this long before I came here. One of the leading officers is an old friend of mine and was a colleague in a different sphere from this. I am perfectly sure that if they form their associations and take steps to see they are in a position to be consulted at the time when we get beyond the setting up of the first Board, there will be no difficulty.
There has been so much said about anglers that I wondered at one time if it had been overlooked that the idea was not to prevent angling but to prevent pollution. The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry talked about pollution and said that it is getting worse every year. We ought not to be read lectures about that from the other side of the House. We realise that it has been getting worse every year and that it is a big problem which should have been put right. In providing this machinery, we are moving as quickly as we can to put it right. I was asked if I could give a date for the report of the sub-Committee, and whether the report would be published. Clearly, I cannot give a date. So far as I know, no one is in possession of a date. I am told that it is not thought unlikely that the report will be available some time this year, but I must not be tied down on that, although I think that a quite likely timetable. There is also no reason to assume that it will not be published when it is produced.
I was asked whether it is our intention to move quickly. The answer to that is absolutely certain. We intend to move as quickly as we can. The heart-cry about Cornwall was taken up, and we were asked whether we intend to keep the awful searing blank on the Milne Committee map. The answer is that this Bill envisages River Boards for the whole of England and Wales apart from the three exceptions mentioned. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend as to what will be the river board areas. There is quite elaborate machinery for consultation, public inquiries, Parliamentary procedure and so on, but there is no intention in this case to leave any blanks at all. I hope that all those dead on the shores of the Tamar will return to their graves happily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln welcomed the restoration of the three-fifths provision in regard to county boroughs. He asked a specific question as to why we alighted on the figure of a 4d. rate. Not too much emphasis should be put on the 4d. rate. It is not the Government's view of the amount which should be spent, but the 4d. rate is the stop point beyond which local authorities must consent by a majority to more money being raised. As to whether it is right in relation to the 2d. rate, we believe it to be so, with the increased costs, since the figure was first arrived at, and with the wider powers we are giving. With those wider powers the 4d. in relation to the 2d. represents the right sort of figure.

Major Legge-Bourke: In fixing the figure of 4d., has the hon. Gentleman borne in mind the reduction in the rates owing to the electricity and railway undertakings being removed from local authority rating valuation? Has he thought of the effect that will have on precepting for the catchment boards?

Mr. Brown: Yes, we have had that in mind. We are not dealing with the amount of money to be raised, or the amount to be spent, but with what is the proper figure in these circumstances to relate to the 2d., and we feel that 4d. is the right figure. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) thought it was a pity that there was no third sub-committee of the main water committee dealing with water conservation. The answer is that water conservation is in a general sense as much a drainage function as draining water away. Drainage is not merely a matter of getting water away, but of seeing that water is in the right place when it is wanted. I emphasise that a good deal of work and a good many schemes are already in train by the Ministry of Health for dealing with water conservation in the sense in which it was meant by the hon. and gallant Member, when conditions permit us to do so.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked me about the power of sub-committees to prosecute. He was thinking of pollution in relation to fisheries. I understood him to feel that there ought to be a fisheries sub-committee, and that when there was one it should have the power to prosecute on

behalf of and in the name of the river board. We have regarded it as an absolute principle that the setting up, or not, of such committees is a matter for the river board. The reasons we take that view and are not in favour of statutory sub-committees are, first, that conditions will vary as between river board and river board, and in some cases a fishery committee would be unnecessary. Secondly, this case, if there is a case at all, could be made not only for a fishery sub-committee but for a drainage sub-committee and a navigational sub-committee, which in other areas might have much more relative importance and weight than a fishery subcommittee. Thirdly, we believe that except in the case of the finance committee, which stands on a different footing and is common to all river boards, the proper thing to do is what is already done with other organs of local government, to leave it to the authority to do the sensible and proper thing.
We should expect that in an area where fisheries are of great interest it would be sensible to have a fishery sub-committee and to co-opt on to it the proportion laid down in the Measure of non-members of the main river board to serve on that sub-committee. We do not regard it as proper to make it a statutory obligation on the boards to make that provision any more than we do in the case of other authorities. The power to prosecute must clearly remain with the river board and not with the sub-committee, subject to the state of the law at the moment. The river boards inherit the law which applies to other bodies. The law needs strengthening and we hope that ultimately, when the main Bill is brought forward, it will in fact provide the necessary strengthening.
I have been asked about the retention of fishery revenues for fishery purposes. The answer is that there is a certain limited amount of money in so-called fishery funds raised in the past under local Acts, and specifically reserved for this work. They will remain reserved for this particular part of the river board's work. But fishery revenues, derived mainly from licences, etc., will go into the general fund. It has been argued they may be used for building a block of offices. The answer to that is the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) tried to face


and did not, that if we say that fishery revenues are to be used only for fishery work we invite the other parties on the river board to say, "Very well, other revenues are not to be used for fishery work." We believe that the fishermen will not lose, but that in fact they will gain by having representatives on these boards with much wider powers than they used to have, able to use other people's revenue—much more than they could raise themselves by their own licences. We think they will stand to gain considerably, and to argue the other way may not be doing them the best service in future, if one thinks about it carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) both raised a point about amenities. Indeed the hon. Gentleman spoke specifically about a member for amenities on the river boards. That is tantamount to saying that the board itself is not expected to be an amenity board. We are here back again to the old argument about the sins and wickednesses of county boroughs and local authorities, and their inability to understand and take care of these things. If a river board does its work of keeping down pollution, raising the standard of fishing and doing drainage work properly, it will be improving the amenities. The answer is that it becomes a board for amenities on which one member so labelled is not required with the implication that everybody else is labelled as the member against amenities. I have already dealt with the question of statutory committees.
The hon. Member for Bodmin raised a particular point about a veto by the Minister of Health on prosecutions in regard to pollution. The answer to that is that the amendment of the law falls into its place in the consideration given to the report from the sub-committee of the main water committee. I have figures here, which I have not time to give, but which show that it is not true that the Ministry of Health veto has been the hampering factor in securing prosecutions. Of all the applications that came through from 1930 to 1939, only one, in fact, was "permission refused." In no other case was the veto by the Ministry of Health the hampering factor. The real hampering factor has been the enormous number of

authorities who have not done their job, and that position is dealt with by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) raised a point regarding the representation of all interested in the river. The answer to that would seem to be that unless representation is limited to contributing interests, the result would be a board of such a size that it would, in fact, become a mass meeting. The point which the hon. Gentleman made with regard to the National Coal Board is answered by the fact that the National Coal Board does contribute, and does do its own work.
There are many other points with which I would have wished to deal, had time permitted. They have all been noted, and will be thought about. I cannot hold out any great hopes that we shall be able to make great concessions in these matters of principle. We believe that, on the whole, we have the right idea, and I commend the Bill to the House, again saying how pleased I am at the opportunity of carrying on in this Labour Government the work of the last Labour Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — RIVER BOARDS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. DIAMOND in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for establishing river boards and for conferring on or transferring to such boards functions relating to land drainage, fisheries and river pollution and certain other functions, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase in the grants payable under Section fifty-five of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, resulting from the extension of that Section by the said Act of the present Session to the constructioin or improvement of gauges, apparatus or works required for the purposes of measuring and recording rainfall and the flow or volume of rivers, streams and inland waters;
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the


Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport in the exercise of functions under the said Act of the present Session; (c) of fees and allowances to referees and members of boards of referees appointed under the said Act of the present Session by the Minister of Labour and National Service and of allowances to persons giving evidence before any such referee or board."—[Mr. T Williams.]

Resolution to be reported tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (ELECTRICITY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 10th February, 1948, entitled Electricity (Price Control) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 224), a copy of which was presented on 11th February, be annulled.
As you will have seen, Mr. Speaker, there is on the Order Paper a second Motion in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre):
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 10th February, 1948, entitled the Electricity Supply (Relaxation of Obligations) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 223), a copy of which was presented on 11th February, be annulled.
They both relate to certain matters concerning the nationalisation of electricity. I do not know whether it would be convenient for them to be discussed together?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the principle of the two is more or less the same and, therefore, probably it would be for the convenience of the House if we had a discussion on the two on the first Motion. If the House agrees, I think that that would be the most convenient course.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Order No. 224 is one which provides that, except with the licence of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, electricity charges may not be reduced. I desire to address the House solely with respect to the provisions of this order. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest will put forward certain considerations in connection with the other order which we are discussing. I fully understand the reasons which have caused the Minister of Fuel and Power to make this order. In fairness to him I should say that, paradoxically enough, on the Second

Reading of the Gas Bill the Minister of Fuel and Power, switching with considerable speed to the subject of electricity, indicated his intention to make this order. In fairness to him, perhaps I should read a few words that he spoke on that occasion, because they give his reasons for introducing this order. On 10th February, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I am sorry to have to tell the House that in certain cases our confidence in the local authorities in this matter has been misplaced. There have been cases where large rebates have been granted to consumers as a sort of parting present from the municipal undertakings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 232.]
I understand that the order No. 224 is intended to deal with the matter. The first point to which I would invite attention is that this order is not confined to the municipalities. It covers all electricity undertakers. That is to say, it covers not only the municipalities, but also the electricity companies. On the right hon. Gentleman's own statement there would appear to be a clear distinction between the two cases. The first objection to this order on the face of it is that it goes beyond the municipalities and also affects the companies.
So far as the municipalities are concerned, I fully appreciate the bitterness which many of them feel not only at losing their electricity undertakings, but also at receiving for them such miserably inadequate compensation. So far as my own Royal and Ancient Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames is concerned, the effect will be that a relief of the rates calculated to amount to 1s. in the £ will not now be realised. That is part of the price to them of this Bill. Having said that, I concede at once that this House having decided, rightly or wrongly, to nationalise electricity on these terms, it would be quite wrong to attempt to thwart the declared will of this House. Therefore, so far as this order is designed to do that, it seems to me that its intentions are wholly admirable. I would emphasise that, even with regard to the municipalities, this placing of a kind of inverted ceiling upon prices is an extremely clumsy and inefficient method. But so far as the municipalities are concerned I am prepared to concede that the intention behind the order is not unreasonable.
However, it goes further and covers the companies, and that is a very different matter. No one will recollect better than the learned Solicitor-General, whom I am glad to see on the Front Bench opposite, that the Electricity Act of last year bristles with penalties directed against the directors of companies who do anything to deprive the Minister of Fuel and Power of his full prey when nationalisation comes into effect. Indeed, as the result of the almost pathological feeling of distaste which the late Minister of Fuel and Power appeared to entertain towards directors, the provisions of the Electricity Act cannot be criticised for any lack of sanctions directed against electricity companies who dissipate their assets in advance of nationalisation. That side of the matter is admirably taken care of: if not admirably, at any rate, efficiently, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, it is, on the face of it, unnecessary to introduce this order and apply it to the companies. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to reply he will appreciate that, so far as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House are concerned, the main ground of complaint against this order is its applicability to the companies.
I would go further. I would say that in forbidding electricity companies to lower their prices something is being done which is not only unnecessary from the point of view of safeguarding their assets, but which is definitely harmful from the broadest national point of view. The point is not academic. There is, indeed, certainly one electricity company—the Notting Hill Gate Electricity Company—which only a few months ago was able to reduce its charges by reason of the return of population to the London area, and the consequent greater spreading of overhead costs, and the consequent cheapening of production costs per unit. It is, no doubt, the case, though I have not made any deep researches into the matter, that other companies have considered, or actually taking, that step. Therefore, the possibility on perfectly sound economic grounds of companies' desiring to reduce their charges is a very real one, and it is far from being merely an academic matter. It is all the more deplorable that the Government should have seen fit at this particular moment

to prevent the reduction of electricity charges.
I appreciate that there is provision in the Order for these charges to be reduced if a licence is obtained from the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I intend no discourtesy to that Department when I say, that those of us who have had experience of dealing with the Department know that if an application were made for a licence today there would not be the slightest chance of a definite answer before 1st April, which is the vesting day under the Electricity Act; and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary would not seriously dispute that. No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon the licensing provision of this order.
Let us face the fact that what this order amounts to is a freezing of electricity prices, not in the sense of the term "freezing" as it was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, meaning the prevention of a rise, but, indeed, in the exactly opposite sense—the prevention of a fall in electricity prices. That being so, it is surely apparent that this order is extraordinarily inconsistent with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government. It is a very clear example of the right hand not knowing what particular brick the left hand is engaged in dropping; and it runs, of course, completely counter to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer less than a fortnight ago. Hon. Members will recollect that on that occasion the Chancellor, with an air of resolute resignation, appropriate, perhaps, to an ageing strip-tease dancer, revealed the nakedness of the land; and he went on to say that not only had prices generally got to be reduced, but that if private industry did not take steps and immediate steps—to reduce them, very serious consequences would happen to private industry. The Chancellor made that abundantly clear. Lest any hon. Member disputes that, let me refer the House to what he said on 12th February:
It is essential, therefore—and from this it is impossible for us to get away—that if wages and salaries are not to be increased generally there must be a halt in price increases, and wherever possible a reduction in prices.
Having said that he had written to the Federation of British Industries and told them so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say something very relevant to this Order:


On this point there is a special observation I would like to make. There is no need, where prices are fixed at a maximum, for any company to charge that maximum.
That is precisely what this Order compels electricity companies to do. The Chancellor went on to say:
Our objective is to reduce prices wherever possible, and to reduce profits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, C. 597–8, 600.]
An electricity company which has been moved and touched by the pellucid eloquence of the Chancellor, and desires to act in accordance with his wishes, now finds that if it does so it is met by the express prohibition of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
It is peculiarly inappropriate that this limitation of reduction should apply to electricity, which is, as the House knows very well, a substantial element in the costs of production of many industries relying upon electricity. Equally, it constitutes a very substantial element in the cost of living. Therefore, from the point of view both of the direct costs of production and of the indirect effect upon wages and the cost of living, it is lamentable that a Government which has pledged its economic fortunes to price reduction so far as private industry is concerned should make a deliberate exception to that policy in the case of an industry which it proposes to take over on 1st April under a nationalisation Measure. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make Government policy on this matter abundantly clear. Is it their policy simultaneously to say to private industry, "Reduce your prices or we shall threaten you with the whole apparatus of the law," and to say that that reduction of prices in which, according to the Government, it is necessary in the national interest for private industry to indulge, is not to be allowed to industries which are nationalised or about to be nationalised? Surely we and private industry outside are entitled to be given a clear indication of Government policy in this regard.
This Order has given rise to considerable discussion outside, because of its apparent inconsistency with the whole policy of His Majesty's Government. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope that he will endeavour to meet that inconsistency, and to explain, if he can, that there is no inconsistency. I hope also

that he will do two things: first, undertake to reconsider this order so far as the companies are concerned, because it would be possible to draft it so that it applied only to municipal undertakers; and, secondly, assure the House that, when any municipal undertakers desire to reduce prices for genuine and good commercial reasons—not with any intention of defrauding the Government or the electricity authority, but where there is a sound economic case for doing so—they shall, not only not be refused permission, but shall be given speedy permission to act, and where they can put forward a case for, say, a 5 per cent. or a 10 per cent. reduction, there shall not be a prolonged examination of the matter such as will delay the whole decision until after nationalisation. Only if the Parliamentary Secretary can do those two things—undertake to reconsider this matter so far as private industry is concerned, and give the assurance for which I have asked so far as municipalities are concerned—will he be able to reassure opinion outside, or indeed dissipate the suspicion that the Government are half-hearted in their policy of price reduction, and desire price reduction only where it causes losses to private industry, and are not prepared either to give a lead to or march alongside private industry in their own nationalised industries when their own direct financial interests are concerned. It is only if the Parliamentary Secretary can do that, that he can prevent a blow to the reputation of the Government and any response to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be expected.

10.15 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has put the case very fairly and without heat. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the particular significance of bulk supplies being exempted from the operations of Clause 2 of the order which governs rebates. I would also draw attention to the proviso, which says that there may be either a maximum rebate of 5 per cent., or whatever may have been the mean charge in the three years immediately preceding the introduction of this order. How will that affect the development of the trading


estates in particular? For very obvious reasons, electricity has been wanted in considerable amounts in the development areas, and I think I am right in saying that the undertakings, in order to spread their charges, have made considerable reductions. As I understand it, every single one of these rebates will be automatically nullified if it is over 5 per cent. I wish to ask whether that is the case, and whether any other arrangements in other parts of the country will also be nullified and have to be rearranged through the Ministry in accordance with the specific terms of this Clause.
I pass now to Order No. 223. It seems most extraordinary that the Ministry of Fuel and Power should have introduced this Order at this particular moment. If we turn to the Explanatory Note, we find that the Order relaxes the obligations upon electricity undertakers, imposed generally by the application of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. Surely the withdrawal of the safeguards and guarantees provided by that Act when nationalisation is being introduced is not something which should commend itself to the House? In the way the Order is drawn, it is very difficult to see exactly which Sections of the Act are to be withdrawn. I will mention one or two of the provisions which are to be withdrawn so far as I can judge.
Section 24 (1), which provides that six people may make a representation to an undertaker, and on their representation the undertaker is bound to give them a supply of electricity, is to be withdrawn, and the provision that if an undertaking happens to be a private company, then the local authority, by a majority vote, may demand a supply from the undertaking, is also to be withdrawn. Section 27 (1) provides that any man who is situated within 50 yards of a mains supply can demand to have electricity laid on. That provision, I understand, will also be withdrawn, as well as the provision in regard to what happens if an undertaker should default on his obligations. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated assent in each of these cases. It seems a most extraordinary thing, after the many statements made by the present Minister of War and the present Minister of Fuel and Power, that the first thing to be done after all the Debates which took place on that Measure, that these

privileges and safeguards for the consumer should be withdrawn. It is quite incomprehensible.
I ask the House to look more closely at the first paragraph. Under (a) a nationalised undertaking need not
give or continue a supply of electrical energy to the owner or occupier of any premises not connected with the mains of the undertakers before the commencement of this Order.
As I read it it is perfectly open to the Minister not only to refuse to sanction after the vesting date any contract for the installation of electrical power which takes place between 13th February and the vesting date but he can cut off any company or user of electricity at his will. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong on that, but it seems to me to bear no other interpretation whatsoever.
If one looks at (b) it will be seen that it states that an electricity undertaking is no longer required
to furnish or lay any electric lines for the purposes of a supply of electrical energy to any premises not so connected or a supply of greater power to any premises.
That can only mean that every single safeguard under the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, to which I have referred, and which enables the consumers of this country, domestic and industrial, to claim the privileges of an electrical supply are now taken away. That seems to me to be something which this House would be very rash to allow. I must admit that when I saw this Order first I read again the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, and I saw how much had been done by this House in the past to secure an adequate supply for consumers, domestic and industrial. Then I saw this Order which takes away all those facilities and allows the Minister, without any appeal, to dissociate himself from any existing supply and gives him the power to cancel any existing contract and to refuse a supply to anybody at any time in the future. We should be doing a rash thing if we passed this Order which allows those things, and it is for those reasons that I second the Motion.

10.23 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I do not wish to add very much to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in moving this Prayer and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for


New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) in seconding it, but there is one aspect of the matter to which I would like to call the attention of the House and that is, the actual form of drafting of Order No. 224. It will be seen that the order begins with the words:
The Minister of Fuel and Power (in this Order referred to as 'the Minister').
I read the entire Order down to the interpretation Clause and I did not find one single reference to the Minister. Those words by themselves are entirely unnecessary. In the interpretation Clause there is this reference:
'licence' means a licence granted by the Minister; 'the Minister' means the Minister of Fuel and Power.
I submit that if in the first words of the Order we are told that the Minister of Fuel and Power is the Minister, then it is a little unnecessary to finish the order by saying that the Minister is the Minister of Fuel and Power.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad hon. Members opposite agree with me. We have here a perfect example of that form of bad drafting to which my hon. and learned Friend the junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), on a number of occasions, has drawn the attention of the House. There is another drafting matter which, again, I think, should be brought to the attention of the House. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order begin with the somewhat strange expression:
Unless under the authority of a licence, no undertaker shall. …
Those words grated somewhat on my ears. I referred to the dictionary, where I found that the word "unless" is a conjunction and, therefore, entirely inappropriate to use in this connection. When we look at the wording of paragraph 2 and take account of what is obviously intended by the word "unless," and substitute a phrase such as "if not," it would run:
If not under the authority of a licence, no undertaker shall in connection with any supply of electricity (not being a supply in bulk).
We have there three negatives running one after the other. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may not be very willing to come forward and speak on these Orders. No doubt they do not take the trouble to read the Orders to try to make some sense out of them. Someone, it is to be supposed, will try to make

sense out of them, and, therefore, I submit that it is essential that the Orders should be drafted in such a way as to make good grammar and good sense.
I agree that after taking a certain amount of trouble it is possible to see what is the meaning of this Order, but I submit that it is wholly slipshod and wholly excessive in its language. In a sense that reflects on the meaning of the Order as expounded by my hon. Friends. It is not only in its language that the Order is slipshod and excessive, it is equally so in effect. What the Order does is to take an immense sledgehammer to crack the smallest possible nut. If the Parliamentary Secretary had come to the House and asked, as he might well ask, for powers to carry out what was stated by his right hon. Friend in the Second Reading of the Gas Bill, I do not think anyone here would have taken the trouble to raise the matter this evening. It is merely because these Orders take powers to do things far beyond what anyone has suggested is necessary for the purpose of the Government that we oppose them tonight.

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has gained the full approval pf the grammarians judging by the chorus of cheers which greeted his remarks, and having satisfied the Opposition, I am sure he is pleased. When he was speaking of drafting, I was surprised to hear him use the phrase "wholly excessive," and I wondered what kind of drafting that was.
If I may turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who opened the Debate, I was rather surprised to hear him say that he was not developing an academic argument, because it seemed to me that his argument was entirely academic and did not get down to the purpose of this order. The point he made in relation to the necessity of having an order which dealt with both the private undertakings and the municipal undertakings, which he indicated was not necessary because of the power we already have under the Act in relation to private undertakings, is met by the fact that there are drafting difficulties in distinguishing between the two types of undertaking. I agree that the hon.


Gentleman said it was an easy matter to draft it; but that was not the view we took after looking at it very carefully.
There is one other point I must take up with the hon. Gentleman. It was a very nice debating point, such as we expect to hear from him. He accused the Ministry of Fuel and Power of being a long time in dealing with matters of this character, and, in effect, he suggested that we had deliberately held back any licences until after 1st April. I am very pleased to tell him and the House that we have received, since the date of the order, 18 applications and have agreed 12 or 13 of them already. There is no desire on our part not to grant licences where those licences are right.
This order is designed to prevent the dissipation of assets until 1st April, when the order will be revoked. It is not intended to affect normal legitimate rebates; indeed, it expressly excludes rebates for prompt payment up to five per cent. and—this will answer the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre)—also for any greater amount of discount or rebate where it has been the custom to have a higher amount of discount over the past three years or so. That is perfectly clear, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at that particular paragraph.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The question I asked the hon. Gentleman was about trading estates.

Mr. Robens: That is bulk supply, and I will deal with that matter, but I wanted to deal with this rather important fact, because the hon. and gallant Member indicated that we were limiting this to five per cent. rebates. We are doing nothing of the kind. Where it has been the custom to give higher rebates, these will be continued, and there will be no difficulty about it. There are a number of discounts that will be automatically granted when licences are applied for. One type of case is the Stratford Board, who have been giving special rebates to help with fuel economy. They have been giving a discount where a customer has reduced his consumption of electricity by one-third. That is a reasonable type of discount, and that would be agreed to quite easily.
We have the case of bulk distributors who receive supply in bulk and then dis-

tribute it, and who, in some cases, have been overcharged and the overcharge has been put right by a credit from the supplying company. They have a right to pass on that overcharge, and the credit they have received for it, to the consumer. Here we would agree at once that they should be licensed so that they can remedy that state of affairs. There is another group of undertakings which have not continuously altered their tariff charges. Instead of altering them, they have given fluctuating rebates or discounts, and in cases of that character we would give the same favourable consideration in the granting of licences. The bulk of applications we have had already fall under heads like these, and the majority we have dealt with in the short time, have been granted.
What is the order really intended to do? It is to prevent the dissipation of assets. I shall cull an extract from the "City Press" of 24th October, 1947, to show how necessary this order is. It reads:
Local Authorities Distribute Power Reserves.
Money Belongs to the People—Not the Boards.
Non-Socialist municipal corporations throughout the country are distributing the reserves accumulated in their electricity supply enterprises. They are taking the view that those reserves belong to the customers and not to the new electricity boards, and they are paying them back to the customers by way of special discounts. Many of the corporations have announced big discounts for prompt payment, and this movement is growing. Hastings Corporation is giving a 33⅓ per cent. rebate, which involves giving away something like £20,000. At Morley, in Yorkshire, a big rebate has been proposed. In that area the Socialists have put up a fight, but they are not succeeding. Barnes, in London, has announced a 25 per cent. reduction on bills for the next quarter.
In none of these cases did these undertakings give discount prior to the nationalisation of the electricity supply industry, so that it is clearly a departure from their normal practice and one which, we claim, is done deliberately to reduce the assets which the socialised industry will take over.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would like to ask whether, since it is a fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred solely so far to municipalities, one is to understand that the sole intention of this order is to deal with municipalities?

Mr. Robens: I have already indicated that the Bill provides all the safeguards which we regard as necessary for the companies, and that only drafting difficulties in the legislation between the two types of supplier have made the order necessary for both. Exeter City Corporation have taken over £30,000 out of the reserves to the relief of the local rates, and this is an aggregation of the sums they might have transferred year by year over the past five years under the statutory authority of the Electricity Supply Acts. Nevertheless, I am not sure of the legality of this action, and it may well be that more may be said about that later. It is, however, another indication of the wanton way in which less public-spirited municipalities are proposing to hand over undertakings on 1st April in a less advantageous position than they are in at the present time, or have been in the past. A great number of municipal undertakings have not taken this narrow view, but have accepted the Parliamentary decision to socialise the industry, and are handing over their undertakings without first "milking" them. If all undertakings had been public spirited, then there would not have been the need for this order. We feel, however, that it is in the national interest that dissipation of assets should not take place, and accordingly I ask the House to oppose this Prayer.
When we come to Order No. 224, dealing with the supply and the obligation of undertakings to supply electricity, there is a different set of circumstances. Under the r800 Act, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the supplying authority is compelled to connect and supply any would-be consumer whose premises are within 50 yards of any of the distributing mains. In normal circumstances, that represents no problem, and is, in fact, a safeguard against monopoly abuse; but plant is in short supply—generating plant is very short at present—and in the national interests there must be priority lists of would-be consumers of electricity. It would not be in the public interest, remembering the shortage of generating plant, cable, and other ancillary requirements, for people with, say, gas lighting, to insist on electricity being supplied to them for lighting purposes instead of to a house in another road in the same locality where new houses are being built

which are waiting for electricity to be connected to them. I think all hon. Members must agree that at present there must be a priority for people who have neither gas nor electricity.
May I say that industry, and the workers in industry, have made a good effort in staggering hours to help the problem, but although big savings have been made, I have to say that the domestic consumer has continued to increase his demands on the electricity undertakings. In support of this, I can say that at Hove we have the case of a local resident taking legal action against a supplier in connection with the provision of two power points in his home. In this particular case, the main in question was already laid, but the power supply to that house for the two power plugs could not be given to that consumer without endangering the supply to the other consumer on that cable. There were costs against the supplier, but the action was dismissed. Clearly it is not in the national interest that supply undertakers should be put in the rather ridiculous position when they are physically incapable of carrying out a statutory obligation. It is clearly wrong, and there is need to absolve them from that.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: While I agree with the case the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, would it not be better, if he is going to introduce this blanket order, to make some provision for appeal, because as it is now drafted, it is left to the national undertaking to make its decisions relative to the consumer.

Mr. Robens: No, that is not quite so. Hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly Members opposite who represent rural areas, in letters to me week after week, and in conversation, ask me what I can do to secure a supply of electricity to farmhouses and places in rural areas. I naturally want to do so and, where I possibly can, to provide power and lighting to a whole group of essential users of electricity. What we have done has been to say to the undertakers, "Here is a list of priority consumers who should be served first." It is impossible for them to do that if this statutory obligation still remains upon them of having, by law, to supply anybody on the lines of the provision which the hon. Gentleman read to the House a few minutes ago.
What is the list? Let us have a look at it. We have to supply all essential public service requirements, domestic or commercial premises, war-damaged houses which have been made habitable again, houses which have been divided into separate tenements, farms and farm workers' cottages, where the war agricultural executive committee has certified that the installation will assist increased food production, existing premises where the present facilities for heating or cooking are inadequate or where hardship would result if the supply were not provided, and where a medical certificate is produced justifying a supply.
It seems to me that these are very important priority claims and that they cannot be met if there is this blanket statutory obligation to supply every whim and desire of someone who happens to live within fifty yards of an existing main. It is right, and in the public interest, that what supplies there are available—physical supplies of labour and generating plant—should be used first in those places where they are most greatly required. That is the sensible thing to do, and that is the reason for the order. I hope that, after this explanation, the House will vote against the Prayer to annul the order.

Lord William Scott: Will the Minister tell us why it is necessary to bring this in now, and why it was not necessary twelve months ago.

Mr. Robens: It was necessary, perhaps, some time ago and we have been dealing with the electricity supply under difficulties. By and large, we have been trying to meet the priority people, but they are now faced with certain associations who will use the law as it stands to prevent them from carrying out our list of priority applications because they want to see more contractors' work done in closely populated areas.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I might say a few words in reply to the Debate. I think that it has served two very useful purposes. First, it has made clear, as far as Order No. 223 is concerned, that statutory rights which electricity consumers have possessed for many years are being taken away from them under

nationalisation, and they are receiving in exchange for those statutory safeguards the mere discretion of the electricity authority. It is quite lamentable, if it is decided to do that, that no provision of any sort should be made for appeal for any of the people adversely affected. I hope people outside will appreciate that they are having taken away from them rights enjoyed for many years, and are being given in return nothing but the unfettered discretion of the British Electricity Authority.
As far as Order No. 224 is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech, very frankly I thought, confirmed the suspicion I had entertained before this Debate that the whole object of the order was to deal with the municipalities. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said, the Minister has an enormous sledgehammer to crush a very small nut. The Parliamentary Secretary has, in addition, caused this inconvenience, not in order to remedy an evil that has anything to do with the companies, but in order to prevent someone else from doing something wrong. Then he comes forward and tells the House that the only reason he does this is because, with all the resources of his Department at his disposal, he finds it impossible to draft an order distinguishing between an electricity company and a municipal authority. That is the most fantastic argument of all, and reflects on the technical capacity of the Department, of which he is a distinguished member.
This distinction has been made over and over again. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the Electricity Act of last year, he will see that the distinction is made with great clarity on a point of great importance. A totally different scale of compensation is provided in the Act for municipalities and electricity companies, and if it is impossible today to define in an order the differences between a municipal electricity authority and an electricity company, how has it been possible in the Act to provide for totally different scales of compensation?
This Debate has been useful because it has not only shown the danger to which consumers are exposed, but has revealed also the technical incompetence of the Ministry of Fuel and Power in causing unnecessary and handicapping controls to be imposed on electricity companies


simply by reason of the Department's own inadequacy in draftsmanship. As far as I can see, it is admitted, so far as municipalities are concerned, except in one or two exceptional cases, that things have been done which justify the making of these orders. Under the unfortunate procedure of delegated legislation, it is impossible for us on this side of the House to register our protest in the Lobby at the unfortunate drafting relating to the treatment of companies without supporting municipalities which are not playing the game, and for that reason alone the matter will not be pressed to a Division.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — AFRICAN TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

10.50 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: The title of the short debate I wish to initiate in this last half-hour is "The United States of Africa." First, I had better explain what I mean by that title. I do not mean that we should get all the various parts of Africa, put them under a common political headship, and then show them to the world as a United States of Africa. That is not my meaning at all. That is the political viewpoint, which in 1948 is far too reminiscent of 1848, and there are far more urgent things to be considered than political arrangements of that kind. The idea of naming it "United States of Africa" was to try to ventilate a new idea in this House through the unique opportunity which one has in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to show to the world that in Africa, under the leadership of this great nation of ours, there are possibilities far greater even that in the other United States of the world, namely the United States of America. I had better explain my interest before I proceed.
I am a great enthusiast for the development of the vast resources, in our territories in Africa. In the position in which we find ourselves in this country, and in the developments that are obviously going to take place in a matter of months from now, real salvation can be found, in my view, in the heart of our territories in

Africa. Further, I am such an enthusiast that I have infected other people to the extent that one of my colleagues is now in Africa with a great plan of building which I hope he will bring to fruition. We shall show in our private capacities that this great development of African resources can really take place in our lifetime, and in the short run help us to overcome our present economic difficulties, and it the long run lead to a new orientation of our people in these vast spaces when our emigrants go from these islands. If we look at the map and see these various states, most of which are under our Colonial Office—territories like Kenya, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Bechuanaland, and that other great territory, Southern Rhodesia—it becomes obvious that, with the resources already developed, each one of them can bear comparison with their counterparts in the United States of America today.
For instance, in Southern Rhodesia there is every possibility of great development in the next few years and of places emerging like Pittsburg and Detroit in America. Then we have the scheme which was reported upon by Sir Miles Thomas. Further there is a cement factory which comes into production in Rhodesia this year and which will be embarked upon in a practical way. The dam across the Zambesi will give far more electricity to Central Africa than the great Boulder Dam in the U.S.A. The Boulder Dam, we must not forget, was opened in 1942. Many of these developments which have made the United States of America so economically rich have been opened up within the last ten years or so. The Boulder Dam, producing great hydroelectric power for Oregon, Washington, and other states—one of the greatest modern gestures of mankind—was finished and in production in 1942, three years after we entered the last war.
The same courage to build could be shown in Africa and a greater dam still could connect Northern and Southern Rhodesia across the Zambesi. We know the difficulty which faces our over-industrialised nation and that we can hardly feed a quarter of our population. We are fighting for dollars to obtain food and we are trying to secure the re-equipment of our industries, but have found nothing but difficulties. If we made a real review, as we ought, we might find we


could make a real saving on matters such as rolling stock which, if it were sent to Northern and Southern Rhodesia, would be more valuable to African development than if it were used for bringing American passengers to Southampton. In the matter of housing, now that our housing schemes in 1948 have taken a definite turn, some people who were producing houses last year will not be doing so this year, and they might be able to provide homes for new dwellers in Africa.
There is no need for a special campaign to get people to go into these territories. They are only too willing to go, but many of those who could do the work necessary to develop the new territories cannot afford a passage—such people as bricklayers and engineers. There is already arising a social problem which may hold up the economic development of those territories, and therefore the Government must come in and provide the facilities for our people. The sooner they start, the better. This would lessen our population and the drain on our food resources over a long period. Arrangements must thus be made for a planned system of emigration.
Many of these ideas have been mooted before; there was one such campaign 100 years ago; but we have never been in such adverse straits as we are in at the moment, and never was there a more opportune time to spread our population and to see that they receive proper attention at the other end, as for instance, by satellite towns. I would like to see a proportion of our population, with complete firms from towns where certain trades are carried on, transferred there to carry on the same trades. The time is ripe for a great expansion to increase our national wealth and the wealth of all our Dominions and Colonial territories.
We have some great planners working behind the scenes and now and then we are given little bits of information about what they are doing. I would like to know if these great planners have taken into consideration the Dominion territories and especially the Colonial territories of Capricorn Africa. Are they, for instance, including the steel production for the next two years in places like Southern Rhodesia, or agricultural production in Tanganyika, Kenya, and so forth; or are

they being left out of the picture? I have a feeling that they are not taking these matters into consideration. I hope that our great plans for this country include further exploitation of these territories and planned emigration, sending people there who will produce goods there which can be sold by this country and earn dollars. Besides food, there are such things as mica, and so forth, which can be shipped to America and earn us dollars.
My great grumble against the party opposite is that it did not take the job seriously when it was in power. They neglected our Empire, some of the richest parts of the world. I hope the Colonial Under-Secretary can give us a reply which will fit into the steps we have taken on this side of the House already—with the Groundnuts Scheme, the Overseas Food Corporation and so on, and show that the birth of the Labour Party as a Parliamentary Government was also the birth of a third Empire.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: The House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) for raising this subject tonight. The need for directing attention to it cannot be over-emphasised. For a moment or two I would like to look at another aspect without in any way disagreeing, but, in fact, entirely concurring in all he has said with regard to the need for an economic build-up of African resources, an advantage not only to Africa but also to this country. With all that I agree, and agree most thoroughly. We cannot however visualise the life of any people merely in terms of the economic set-up, because, from the economic fundament there must emerge some sort of political superstructure. It is to that aspect that I wish to direct the attention of the House.
When we look at the tragic fate of Europe today, we realise what an enormous power in shaping the economic outlook of this country today a United States of Europe would have been. There is no argument about the need. Europe proclaims that need every hour of the day. But we have to be careful when we talk about a United States of Africa in the political sense. We want to say, at the very beginning, that we are not going to create in other parts of Africa any more


South Africas; that if there is to be a United States of Africa, then black and white must live on terms of greater equality than are prevalent in South Africa at the moment. When we think also of a United States of Africa we are not going to think of it in terms of the United States of America, where, again, political equality is denied to the black peoples in the Southern States. We have to be careful how we use the phrase "United States of Africa." If it is to have any meaning to the indigenous peoples of Africa, it has not only to bring them higher economic standards, but higher political ways of living and all that follows from that. I wanted to add these further thoughts to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend. As I said at the beginning, the House is indebted to him for having raised this matter.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) to pass without some reply. He made some remarks about exploiting our Colonies. I hope that will be put right by the Under-Secretary, as I understood that it was this side of the House which was always condemned for exploiting our Colonies, and it was a surprise to us to hear the suggestion made from that side of the House. I should also like to take him up on the remark about the neglect of our Colonies by the Conservative Party. Because we in this country are becoming afraid that we are going to starve, a great interest is being shown in Africa. We are trying to make our people believe that there are vast resources of food to come out of Africa to help this country. If the natives of Africa are fed properly, there will be no surplus to come out of Africa, and the sooner the Government let the people of this country know that fact the better. The natives are increasing to a tremendous extent, and they are unable to provide food for themselves at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member cannot have been in Africa or he would not have said that we had neglected our Colonies. In the short space of 60 years we have gone to Kenya, done away with the slave trade, stopped tribal warfare, taught the natives hygiene, and in the last 25 years have seen the native population

doubled. If that is not something of which to be proud, I do not know what is.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: If the Argentine railways had been laid in Rhodesia they would not need to be taken today for our food.

Mr. Baldwin: We built a railway through Kenya to Uganda and we have laid railways all over Africa. When we begin to make a song and dance about the small sum of £150 million which it is now suggested we should spend in the Colonial Empire, when we have spent hundreds and thousands of millions in developing it in the past, it is time to remember what has been done already. I repeat that it is not fair to accuse this party of neglecting our Colonial Empire.

11.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) for raising this subject tonight, because it is one of great importance, and one in which the people of this country are taking an ever greater interest. The time tonight is too short to deal with such a vast subject, and I hope we may have another opportunity later to deal with it at more leisure. I was glad that my hon. and gallant Friend did not explore the political possibilities of a "United States of Africa" at any great length, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) has pointed out, that would be a very delicate and difficult subject. The races are not homogeneous, and the problem which we have to face is to develop the tribes, which are no longer migratory and encourage them to think in terms of territorial units. That is the problem, and at the moment it is out of the question to think of a United States of Africa even if, which is not the case, most of the African territory were British territory.
The difficulty in the economic and political development of Africa is that the Colonies of the west grew out of very small trading stations. These particular stations became Crown Colonies, and finally, mainly for reasons of protection, the vast hinterlands behind them put themselves under the protection of the little Crown Colonies. That is the case in the Gold Coast and Nigeria, for example. In East


Africa their origin was the pursuit of the slave traders. So in both areas there is nothing which is really an economic whole. They are part of a vast area of Africa, some of which is under British control, some under French, Portuguese or Belgian control as the case may be. There is no hope—and I believe there is no desire for it by the Africans themselves—of anything in the nature of a political United States of Africa.
When we turn to the economic side, with which my hon. Friend dealt largely in his speech, we find that Africa is a producer of agricultural raw materials. That is its main production now, and it is likely to remain so for some time to come. Our policy is to develop the economic resources of Africa in the interests of the inhabitants, and in close association with the countries of Western Europe. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has announced that policy, which has been received on all sides of the House, and in most parts of the country, with great sympathy and considerable support. We intend to have the closest co-ordination with other European countries which have African responsibilities. There is a vast number of subjects—public health, the eradication of the tsetse fly and the rinderpest virus, mass education, and the like—on which we could co-operate and formulate a common policy with the other nations in Western Europe which have African responsibilities. Only last week officers of the Colonial Office visited Paris and had a most successful conference with their opposite numbers in the French Colonial Office on many of these problems. From time to time we have held, and will continue to hold, similar conferences with other nations who have responsibilities similar to our own.
Then there is the closest co-ordination between British territories in Africa, which are neighbouring, or which are on the same coast although not adjoining. We have three regional organisations—the East African High Commission, which deals with East African territories, the West African Council, which deals with West African territories, and the Central African Council, which deals with Central African territories. This regional co-operation is essential, but a greater grouping of regions, some sort of super-region con-

sisting of a number of these regions, possibly two or even three, is in our opinion undesirable. It would lead to the setting up of an administrative body with a vast horde of officials, which would result in large expenditure with very little return. Therefore, at the present moment we do not propose to go in for any super-regional organisation, and intend to stick to the three regions we have.
My hon. Friend has dealt with the development possibilities in Africa, and it seems to me there are now three vital and urgent needs. The first is to provide skilled technical assistance from this country and elsewhere; the second, to provide capital goods, mainly steel; and the third, consumer goods. It is no good exhorting the African to work harder and for more hours unless we give him something for which to work. I should say that, of all these things, the most urgently wanted is steel. When any African Governor dies the word "steel" is found written across his heart, because he realises that without steel nothing can be accomplished in Africa. Hon. Members do not need to be told what the steel position is in this country. The Government have under urgent consideration all the time this question of the allocation of priorities in steel for Africa, and priorities in other rare commodities also. We in the Colonial Office have under review the whole of the requirements not only of Africa but of the other Colonial territories, and we are in the process at the moment of considering various other matters which flow from a priority system and are essential to it. We hope that before very long there will be some fruitful results.
With reference to what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said, I would point out that some 40 years ago a very famous traveller visited Africa and made a very powerful indictment of capitalist exploitation in Africa. He made a powerful advocacy of State Socialism in Uganda for the employment of the natural resources by the State. I cannot think of any better advocacy of Socialism, as applied to an infant country, than that in the book of this traveller. I need hardly say that the book is entitled, "My African Journey," and that the traveller was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Baldwin: Always ahead of everybody, is he not?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes. In this book he describes the Murchison Falls and says:
I cannot believe that modern science will be content to leave these mighty forces untamed, unused, or that regions of inexhaustible and unequalled fertility, capable of supplying all sorts of things that civilised industry needs in greater quantity every year, will not be brought—in spite of their insects and their climate—into cultivated subjection. Certain it is that the economy of the world remains hopelessly incomplete while these neglects prevail, and, while it would be wasteful and foolish to hustle, it would be more wasteful and more

foolish to abate the steady progress of development.
That was 40 years ago. We, too, are dreamers of dreams, but the difference between us and the famous traveller who went to Africa 40 years ago is that our dreams will come true.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Eleven o' Clock.